The Mystery of the Orthodox Commemoration of a False Saint

Monastery of the Dormition of the Theotokos in Pepelenitsa of Aigealea

By John Sanidopoulos

In many of the more detailed Orthodox ecclesiastical calendars, there is a "Saint" listed who should not be listed that is commemorated on November 14th. He is often listed as "Saint Panteleimon the New Martyr at Crete", and the only biographical information about him given is that he was born in Spetses and died as a martyr by the Turks in Crete at a young age in the year 1848. In my desire to know more about him, I decided to do some research.

The only other reference to this "Saint Panteleimon" I could find was in an encyclical issued by the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece dated August 30, 1865 (Protocol Number 4126). There it says that a question was posed to the Holy Synod, as to whether or not it was allowed for the churches to commemorate a certain "Neomartyr Panteleimon", and celebrate the divine services composed in his honor and previously published in a booklet. This booklet was published in Athens by the publisher "Agathe Tyche", which consists of hymns to the unknown "Neomartyr Panteleimon" who was martyred in Crete on November 12, 1848.

St. Paisios the Athonite on Confronting Difficult Ecclesiastical Issues

- Elder, what is the right way to confront difficult ecclesiastical issues?

- We must avoid extremes; extreme solutions will never solve a problem. In the old days, the grocer would add little by little with the scoop on the scale until he got the exact weight and the scales were balanced. In other words, he did not add or remove large amounts abruptly. Extreme positions always cause suffering for our Mother the Church, as well as for those who hold those positions, because an extreme stance has a way of nailing people into place.

Saint Eulogios of Alexandria as a Model for our Lives

St. Eulogios of Alexandria (Feast Day - February 13)

By Archimandrite Fr. George Papavarnavas

Saint Eulogios, Archbishop of Alexandria, was from Syria and served in Antioch as Presbyter and as Abbot of the Monastery of the Most Holy Theotokos. He lived from the mid-sixth to early seventh century, during the reigns of Emperors Tiberius I the Thracian (578-582), Maurice (582-602) and Phokas (602-610). He came to the throne of the Church of Alexandria in 571, according to others in 579, and served as hierarch until 607. He was the predecessor of Saint John the Merciful. Not only did he perform many miracles after his repose, but also while he lived. When Saint Leo, Pope of Rome, sent his legendary epistle of Orthodoxy to the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, which had gathered in Chalcedon, Saint Eulogios praised it and proclaimed everywhere the content of the epistle. Then an Angel of the Lord appeared to Saint Eulogios in the form of the Archdeacon of Pope Leo, who thanked him for accepting the content of the epistle. The Saint thought he was conversing with the Archdeacon, however, when the Angel disappeared in front of him, then he realized what took place and glorified God. At the moment he thanked and glorified God he delivered to Him his holy soul.

Christmas and the Church Today: An Interview With Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos

The interview published below was done in 1997, during a time of highly publicized scandals in the Church of Greece, by the newspaper "Orthodoxy in Greece and the World" with His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou.

Question 1: What is the significance of the sacred Twelve Days for the Orthodox?

Answer: First of all I congratulate you because you are dealing with such matters, escaping some of the so-called news, which in many places is misleading. In answer to your question, I would say that the Twelve Days of Christmas and Theophany give to Orthodox the opportunity to approach existentially and personally the three major Despotic feasts of the Birth, Circumcision and Baptism of Christ, which constitute the mystery of the reformation of the human race. And indeed, this approach takes place within the worshipping and sacramental realm of the Church.

Question 2: Is the incarnation of Christ a challenge to the world?

Answer: Christ appeared in history as the greatest challenge. I am not only referring to his revolutionary teachings, but the fact that He united the created with the uncreated, the divine with the human. Saint John of Damascus says that Christ is "the only thing new under the sun". That is, after the creation of the world all things are repeatable, while the birth of Christ is the only new thing in history. And the God-man Christ is a challenge today, precisely because man likes to place himself as the center of all things (anthropocentrism) and I would say seeks to disincarnate Christ. That is, when contemporary people degrade God to the human, and then humans to subhumans and beasts, the Divine-humanity is a challenge to obtaining a high sense of life, to experience so-called dimensional ontology. After all, what is needed by contemporary man is not just "depth psychology", but "height psychology (and theology)", as Victor Frankl would call it, or a high sense of life.

Question 3: Today's image portrayed by the Church of Greece, especially the last two years, could it adversely affect the Orthodox flock, and if so, how is it possible to correct this image?

Answer: If we try to answer this according to Einstein's spacetime, in which the knowledge of an object depends on the position and movement of the observer, then we can say that the image one has of the Church of Greece depends from which perspective one sees it and depending on their own existential movement. One will have either an image of the Church of Greece as seen through the various media, or there is another image which is through a personal approach to her interior space, where there are huge changes and transformations taking place. And it is a fact that if the flock stands on the outside of this information, they will be adversely affected, but if they approach the sacramental space of the Church they will not be seriously troubled, because they will learn that despite her personal faults and failings, the Church is the Body of Christ and not a human organization. It is a spiritual hospital that treats humans, and it is the only space of life.

It is a fact that lately, and due to the vast means of communication, there have come to light various so-called ecclesiastical scandals. But these more often are autonomous from the whole life of the Church, and are overly magnified, and they often serve the various designs of disorienting people. Ultimately, I believe that the effort to reduce the validity and the work of the Church, because of the passions of some members, is like trying to catalyze the democratic civilization of a country, possibly because some elected representatives of the people steal and exploit the people. Such absolutism, I think, is a temperate climate to incubate dictatorial attitudes.

This does not mean that these sick situations should continue within the Church, but should be treated with all the life contained within the Church.

Question 4: We see today that the majority of Greek people are not catechized. Do you think people need a catechism to redefine their relationship with the real purpose of the holidays and not only occupy themselves with the folklore opposed to it?

Answer: It is a fact that most of our people are not catechized in the deeper meaning of the events celebrated on these great feasts. Beyond catechism, what is needed today is for people to see friends of the God-man Christ, since they can't see the God-man Christ Himself. It is true that man's life is affected negatively or positively by the standards presented before him. Friends of the God-man are the saints, who exist even today, and who can be met in person - Clergy, monks, humble parents and teachers, afflicted people who endure and believe. And finally, if today in our country secularism has not institutionalized, it is due to the rich tradition that exists in the undercurrents of life, which circulate, due to the existence of people within our community, such as Papadiamantis, Makrygiannis, etc. who hold lit the spark of faith and life.

Question 5: Is the consumerism of today consistent with the salvific event of the Incarnation?

Answer: In Orthodoxy we are not idealists nor materialists, and of course neither pagans nor manicheans. Therefore, we do not reject material goods, nor do we deify them. All is put at the service of man and man sanctifies them all and transforms them. Consumerism, in fact, represents a serious existential problem, an insecurity and existential emptiness. Conversely, the event of the incarnation of Christ is associated with emptiness (kenosis) and newness, simplicity and spiritual nobility, love and spiritual affection, poverty and wholeness of the soul.

Question 6: How can we as Orthodox understand the meaning of the birth of Christ?

Answer: It is known that according to the Cartesian understanding, existence and knowledge identify with correct reasoning: "I think, therefore I am." In the Orthodox understanding knowledge is identified with the entire existence of man, the existence of which is not confined to logic and rationality: "I live in Christ, therefore I am." Thus, the only way to understand the event of the birth of Christ is to be able to enter it, like swimmers, naked of the images given by others, in the sea of the love of God, as experienced within the Church. The elimination of misleading images is a safe method of finding spiritual knowledge and fullness.

Question 7: What is the message of the Nativity for the time of a merchant society?

Answer: When we speak of a merchant society, what is meant primarily is a utilitarian and commercial society, a society that reduces the traditional values ​​and structures of society. Indeed, relations between people today are out of rationalism, individualism and utilitarianism, which are features of the Western Enlightenment, and has permeated the culture and social life of many people in our time. In such an unsociable society, the message of Christ's birth is that man was created to be a person, to have a right relationship with God and people. There must be an openness to the other, who is not an other, a stranger, or a hell, but we are brethren, the image of God. If you go through these celebrations and we cannot dispense with the idea that others are a danger to us, then we will lose another opportunity to get away from the hell of a merchant society.

Source: Ekklesiastiki Paremvasi, "ΤΑ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥΓΕΝΝΑ ΚΑΙ Η ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ", December 1997. Translated by John Sanidopoulos.

Healthy and Sick Monasticism

The following essay was recently written by His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos in response to a scandal that has been occurring in his Metropolis which also recently brought him to break communion from one of his local monasteries, the well-known Monastery of the Holy Transfiguration in Nafpaktos. Yet it still provides an excellent template to distinguish generally what healthy and sick monasticism is according to Orthodox tradition.

By His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos
of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou

Monasticism is the glory of the Church, and the monks, as taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa, are the crown of the body of the Church and are truly a jewel of the head, since monks, like hairs, are also dead to the world and glow and radiate the Light of Christ.

In actuality, monastic life is a prophetic, apostolic and martyric life, and through this dimension Orthodox celebrate true monasticism.

If one reads the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the Apostles, they will find that the first Christians, imitating the apostolic group of Christ, lived by prayer, common life, inspiration, landlessness, and they expected the coming of the Kingdom of God, which they experienced as a spiritual engagement.

During the persecutions, Christians lived intensely according to Divine inspiration and descended into the lower parts of the earth - in the catacombs - to worship God. Of course, they did not live independently, but were tied together with their Clergy and their Bishops.

Following the cessation of persecution and the secularization of Christians, the phenomenon of withdrawal grew more.

Caves, forests and countrysides became full of monks that wanted to live the "martyrdom of conscience", to constantly glorify God, to pray to Him, to live and seek the coming of the Kingdom of God.

Because there could have been diversion in this situation, for this reason Basil the Great with his ascetic texts, particularly his "Longer Rule" and his "Shorter Rule", laid the foundations for the original healthy monasticism. Avoiding extremes he organized the communal life, so that monks could live within the Church, which is the blessed and sacred institution established by the Holy Spirit as the Body of Christ, and they could be saved by remaining within Her.

Since within all forms of social life there is observed excess, for this reason the Church decided synodically how monasticism should function and how the Monasteries should work its hierarchical and synodical government. Two Canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod are characteristic which form the basis of Orthodox monasticism and determine the difference between healthy and sick monasticism.

The 4th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod is very clear:

"Let those who truly and sincerely lead the monastic life be accorded true honor; but, inasmuch as certain persons using the pretext of monasticism bring confusion both upon the churches and into political affairs by going about promiscuously in the cities, and at the same time seeking to establish Monasteries for themselves; it is decreed that no one anywhere build or found a monastery or oratory contrary to the will of the bishop of the city; and that the monks in every city and district shall be subject to the bishop, and embrace a quiet course of life, and give themselves only to fasting and prayer, remaining permanently in the places in which they were set apart; and they shall meddle neither in ecclesiastical nor in secular affairs, nor leave their own monasteries to take part in such; unless, indeed, they should at any time through urgent necessity be appointed thereto by the bishop of the city. And no slave shall be received into any monastery to become a monk against the will of his master. And if any one shall transgress this our judgment, we have decreed that he shall be excommunicated, that the name of God be not blasphemed. But the bishop of the city must make the needful provision for the monasteries."

This Canon is very clear. Monks should not oversee themselves, but they ought to obey the Bishop of the land. They should fulfill the essence of monasticism, which is quietude, fasting, prayer, and to remain patiently in the place they have chosen.

Further, they are not to take actions that cause disruption in the Church and in the community, and they are not to leave the Monastery and wander the world without the permission of the Bishop.

Monks who otherwise do not obey the Bishop and do not live monastically are to be excommunicated. In these healthy conditions the Bishop shall make provisions for the Monasteries.

It is obvious that the Church is composed of Bishops who live in communion with the Presbyters and the people. In the Church is a hierarchical and synodical government, which means that no one does what they want, but everyone has something to offer somewhere. Also, in the Church there is a clear difference between the Parish and the Monastery. That which is common is the Divine Eucharist and the other Mysteries, and the difference is in the way of life, since in the Parish people who live in society are guided pastorally, while in the Monastery intense prayer is cultivated for the benefit of all Christians.

The 8th Canon of the same Synod, that is the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, goes even deeper to determine what should be the behavior of the monks and the laity towards the Bishop. And I quote:

"Let the clergy of the poor-houses, monasteries, and martyries remain under the authority of the bishops in every city according to the tradition of the holy Fathers; and let no one arrogantly cast off the rule of his own bishop; and if any shall contravene this canon in any way whatever, and will not be subject to their own bishop, if they be clergy, let them be subjected to canonical censure, and if they be monks or laymen, let them be excommunicated."

This Canon is also very clear. It indicates that the Bishop of a local Church is not a decorative element, but he who sets up the unity of the Local Church.

The clergy of the Monasteries should not arrogantly go against the Bishop. The Canon in the original language of the Synod writes: "καί μη κατά αυθάδειαν αφηνιάτωσαν του ιδίου επισκόπου" ("let no one arrogantly cast off the rule of his own bishop").

Usually we say that a certain horse went wild on a rampage (αφηνίασε). This image is reflected in Hieromonks who go on a rampage against Bishops. [Aφηνιάζω literally means to get the bit between the teeth.]

Zonaras interprets the word αφηνιάζειν as to abscond and escape from the power of the Bishop.

Also, in this Canon is established that those who subvert this order are to receive a penance. Of course, penances are used as therapeutic agents for the treatment of diseased members of the Church, as is done with the sicknesses of the body. Which means that anyone who does not obey the Holy Canons and the synodical and hierarchical government of the Church is sick and will die spiritually if they do not repent.

In this Canon, besides the Clergy of the Monasteries, monastics and laity are referenced as well. Interpreting why this Canon makes reference to the laity, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes: "In order to expose those laymen on whose boldness and protection the clergymen and monks rely in showing disrespectfulness to the Bishop and refusing to submit to his authority."

From these two Canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, which have ultimate authority in the Church, and which all should apply to themselves, are exported three consequences:

1. The Orthodox Holy Monastery in the tradition of the Church has a specific purpose and a specific mission. They receive some members of the Church - men and women - who want to cultivate prayer fervently and live with fasting and quietude, that is, to live ascetically the entire hesychastic tradition of the Church.

The Holy Monastery differs clearly from the way pastoral work in the Parishes is done, and they should neither be substitutes for the Parishes nor to struggle against their pastoral activity.

In other words, monks are indirectly pastoral, showing secular people by their example to pray and live a spiritual life within the Church, respecting the Clergy, especially the Bishops.

In this way Monasteries should not distract people in a coordinated and systematic way from the Parishes and should not elevate themselves to the extent and manner that the Parish works.

For example, monks cannot alter Monasteries into Conference Centers, Entertainment Centers, Camping sites with a concentration of youth, and radio stations, etc. They cannot develop various programs such as excursions, entertainment with instruments, etc.

Orthodox monks cannot convert their Monasteries into Parishes, especially without approval from the Bishop, whose approval must be permanent and not merely to indicate a "blessing" given without explanation from another predecessor Bishop in the past.

If some monks want to work pastorally, they can with the permission of their Bishop, in a Parish area. Let them decide and receive permission to become the Priest of a Parish and exercise their pastoral work toward people. Monasteries cannot be secularized and turn into Parishes and thus alter the spirit of Orthodox monasticism, and in general for a rivalry to exist between Monasteries and Parishes.

2. The Orthodox Holy Monastery cannot be organized as an independent "Diocese", the monks cannot live independently, and the Abbot cannot be presented as a second ecclesiastical authority, like a Chorbishop (Χωρεπίσκοπος). Of course, every Holy Monastery and every Parish is self-governed, but not autonomous, cut off from the hierarchical and synodical government of the Church.

The Bishop of every Local Church has the special grace to shepherd and care for the whole Church, so that all things are done with order and decorum, on the basis of the Holy Canons and ecclesiastical tradition. It is not just a decorative element and a secular administrative institution.

He will guide his flock - the Clergy, monks and laity - with the knowledge of Holy Tradition and the Divine Canons, which during his consecration he assured he would preserve and honor.

The pastoral staff given to him at his consecration as a Bishop is not a decorative element, but eminently symbolic. Characteristic are the words said during the giving of the pastoral staff: "Receive this staff, to shepherd the flock of Christ entrusted to you, and be a staff and support to those who are obedient. But lead the disobedient and the wayward unto correction, unto gentleness, and unto obedience; and they shall continue in due submission."

The pastoral staff symbolizes the episcopal ministry, for the Bishop must support the deferential with staff-bacteria, and teach with staff-censure the waggish and ridiculous, who create "jokable and ridiculous episodes".

Thus, the Holy Monastery cannot substitute or replace the episcopal ministry and present itself as an "episcopal authority" in the land, which competes with the Bishop of the land and functions as a second ecclesiastical authority in the land.

Of course, the Bishop of the area who has discernment and wisdom does not feel the arrogant Abbot as an antagonist, but he cannot tolerate anti-ecclesiastical actions that divide the church-space and make people fanatical, making them members of an anarchical-autonomous group whom they use as "pawns" in their own pursuits of love for authority.

The Bishop cannot remain indifferent to a situation that alters the ecclesiastical ethos and the ecclesiastical phronema. He cannot tolerate schisms of the ecclesiastical body and alterations to the monastic and ecclesiastical traditions.

He will be patient, he will teach the people, he will suggest the appropriate thing, but when certain sickened situations begin to become established, then he is obliged to take appropriate measures for their therapeutic treatment, according to the description of the 31st Step of St. John Climacus' Ladder of Divine Ascent, titled "To the Shepherd". It is not possible for him to be indifferent to ecclesiastical cancers and to give his heirs an inheritance of anomalous ecclesiastical situations.

3. The Orthodox Holy Monastery must be a model and template even of social life, financial transparency and legitimacy, freedom and justice. From the Holy Monasteries, in which monks who pray and live in depth and height the life in Christ, there should emanate a spirit of love, spiritual freedom, release from any addiction, a spiritual fragrance of courtesy and ecclesiastical grandeur. A Holy Monastery with these makes them Orthodox. When angels are a light to monks, monks also become a light to people. Conversely, as someone would say to me, "when a monk doesn't have wings (he isn't an angel), he has horns and a tail!"

Personally I think it's a problem for a society when there are three ill conditions.

First, when there is dominant indifference in matters of financial corruption, financial abuse, and various irregularities.

A society that is indifferent to such situations shows its forfeiture.

The second ill condition is when there are violent acts, when the residents instead of expressing their demands in a peaceful and democratic manner, manifest with violent and fascistic ways.

The society should be governed by democratic principles and it must tend to the education of the people.

The third ill condition is when in the society someone bullies from various centers, so that people are scared to express themselves, because they know that soon will start blackmails, pressures, slanders and threats to their lives.

A society that is dominated by such an ill condition is unable to stand on its legs, unable to meet the high vocation of giving morals, security and freedom to its citizens.

I make this offering to this text in reference to monasticism, because when these three ill conditions (financial corruption, violence, intimidation) emanate from ecclesiastical centers, from secular Monasteries, who are trying to control society with political and social resources, and seek to regulate even the political and social issues of society, from the perspective of political and party lines, then society is in a total depression.

I think the Bishop of a Local Church oversees and reviews all these issues and tries to heal them with discernment, reason, and sometimes with spiritually surgical interventions.

He must not only attend brilliant social events, but be aware of the purpose of his mission and especially to work within ecclesiastical tradition and with the prerequisite condition and knowledge that he will give a reason for his actions, for his words, and for his works before God.

Of course, with such a serious and responsible position, there are dangers and risks of certain corruption, and some mindlessly threaten their very life with such incompatibility of an evil Bishop.

To conclude, I want to say that healthy monasticism is the glory of the Church, but sick monasticism, which turns itself into a Parish or Diocese or secular organization, into a "dive" in the words of the Holy Canons, is a source of various defects in the Church and society, and is really a sore of the Church and the eternal bane of monks.

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

The Desecration of Crosses in Russia and the Russian Church

Top-less activist group FEMEN uses a chainsaw to cut-down a WWII memorial cross in a demonstration of support for Russian female activist group Pussy Riot. 

The Russian Orthodox Church said an antireligious campaign – in sympathy with Pussy Riot punk band – was under way after four large wooden crosses were destroyed over the weekend.

Fred Weir

August 27, 2012

The Christian Science Monitor

The Russian Orthodox Church is warning of an organized antireligious campaign under way against Christians in Russia, after vandals in two widely separated regions took chainsaws to four large wooden crosses over the weekend.

Church spokespeople maintain the damage was done by people who are either in sympathy or in league with the Pussy Riot collective, three of whose members were sentenced to two years in a penal colony earlier this month for profaning an Orthodox altar with an obscenity-laced "punk prayer" that called upon the Virgin Mary to rid Russia of Vladimir Putin.

The four crosses were chopped down by unknown persons who left police no clues to their motives or identity. One was a large wooden crucifix erected to the memory of Soviet-era political prisoners in the far northern region of Archangelsk. Russian media reported three more wooden crosses were destroyed in Chelyabinsk region over the weekend, which is thousands of miles away in western Siberia.

A local priest in Archangelsk, Hegumen Feodosy, told the state-run Russia Today network that the destruction of the cross, just across the street from his church, was the latest in a series of arson and vandal attacks on religious symbols in his locality and around Russia.

"This comes in the context of all these incidents in recent months across the country, all this anti-church hysteria waged against our diocese, against the church authority, against everything sacred," he told RT.

But Pyotr Verzilov, a Pussy Riot activist and husband of one of the imprisoned women, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, told journalists the group has no connection with the latest episodes of vandalism and doesn't approve of them. Two members of the group, which is a radical feminist "performance art" collective, reportedly fled Russia last week to escape police efforts to arrest them in connection with the Feb. 21 "punk prayer" in Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

Two weeks ago, in Kiev, members of a Ukrainian feminist "performance art" collective, Femen, chainsawed a large wooden Orthodox cross as an explicit protest against the Pussy Riot verdict. The Femen women argued they were cutting down the symbol of "a corrupt church" whose actions prop up the "dictatorship" of Mr. Putin.

"What we're seeing here are copycat acts, people who take a signal from what Pussy Riot did, and it could be very dangerous," says Alexei Mukhin, director of the independent Center for Political Information in Moscow.

"Having said that, however, it should be noted that the church leaders are not being entirely forthcoming here. They have a vested interest in portraying themselves as victims, especially since they failed so miserably in the Pussy Riot struggle," he says.

Church officials began seriously complaining of a wave of sacrilegious assaults early this year, citing the Pussy Riot affair and other acts of vandalism to suggest a wider conspiracy to undermine the church's prestige and authority in Russian society.

Pro-church commentators have been quick to argue that the weekend attacks on crosses, which are a fundamental symbol of Christianity, look like an unambiguous assault on religious believers and cannot be mistaken for a "political protest" as the women of Pussy Riot claimed they were carrying out.

"These actions clearly speak of the moral values ​​of those who are attacking the church," Father Vsevolod Chaplin, a leading church spokesman, told the independent Interfax agency. "With these symbolic actions they are seeking to impose their will on the majority of the population," he added.

At an April rally in Moscow of about 50,000 people called to defend the church from its enemies, Patriarch Kirill warned that individual acts of blasphemy and sacrilege presented a profound threat to social order.

"We are under attack by persecutors," Kirill said at the time. "The danger is in the very fact that blasphemy, derision of the sacred is put forth as a lawful expression of human freedom which must be protected in a modern society."

Some critics argue the main problem is not the acts of vandalism and profanity – however reprehensible they may be – but that the church has overstepped the bounds of secular society and is seeking to regain its traditional role as ideological gatekeeper of the Russian state.

In recent years, the church has been criticized for backing criminal prosecutions of artists and gallery directors who display allegedly blasphemous art works, for attempting to prescribe how Russian women ought to dress in public, and for being excessive in its demands for the return of historic church lands and artifacts that were nationalized and handed over to Russian state museums in Soviet times.

Several scandals have rocked the church in recent months, including blog-fueled revelations about the lavish lifestyles and wealth of Patriarch Kirill and other top clergy. This month, Russian media reported a still largely unexplained story about a senior priest at a leading Moscow church who, allegedly drunk and driving an expensive sports car with foreign diplomatic plates, plowed into two other cars, causing massive damage and several injuries.

During the presidential election campaign last winter, Patriarch Kirill publicly described candidate Putin as "a miracle from God," which many critics – including the women of Pussy Riot – took as a violation of Russia's strictly secular constitution and a sign of a growing political nexus between church and state.

"This is not a simple or one-sided issue," says Mr. Mukhin. "Now the church is trying to persuade everyone that there is a great monster menacing the church and society. Yes, vandalism is a threat, but the behavior and public actions of the church are agitating society and are part of the problem."

Beyond the Pussy Riot Sentencing

I will use this page as a resource for articles I find interesting and worth reading concerning the Pussy Riot case and its aftermath. It will be updated as new articles come forward.

Pussy Riot Sentences Split Russian Society

Pussy Riot's Crime and Unfair Punishment

Pussy Riot: A Complex View From Orthodox Moscow

Pussy Riot is the tip of the iceberg – 'there's a lot of intimidation going on'

Too Much Noise About Pussy Riot

Why Pussy Riot Is Not The Most Important Political Case In Russia

Pussy Riot Sentence Brings Dissent to the Masses

‘Jail for Sacrilege’: Vandalism by Pussy Riot supporters angers MPs

Pussy Riot as Modern Day Skomorokhi

Pussy Riot Trial Unleashes Putin’s Secret Weapon: The Orthodox Faithful

Pussy Riot, Holy Foolishness and Monk Punk

“Establishing an Orthodox Militia Will Lead to Civil War”

The Desecration of Crosses in Russia and the Russian Church

Pussy Riot Condemn the Cutting Down of Four Orthodox Crosses in Russia

After Pussy Riot Verdict, Christian Culture Warriors Run Riot in Moscow

"Free Pussy Riot" Written in Blood at Russian Murder Scene

Pussy Riot Controversy: Nothing New Under the Sun

By John Sanidopoulos

Three members of the punk band Pussy Riot – Maria Alyokhina, 24, Yekaterina Samutsevich, 30, and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, 22 – were sentenced to serve two years in a penal colony on Friday after being found guilty of "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred". A Moscow judge rejected the defence's argument that the band's performance of an anti-Vladimir Putin "punk prayer" was a form of political protest and found that it was motivated by hatred for Russian Orthodoxy.

Unfortunately the prosecution has not read its history to know that such an extreme reaction to a protest only vindicates and fuels the growth of the movement and ideology, and creates a deeper controversy than what could have been prevented.

For example, when the news first reported on the Pussy Riot performance in Christ the Savior Cathedral a few months ago, my mind immediately went to a performance in 1977 by the English punk band the Sex Pistols. That year they had released the single "God Save the Queen", amidst very much scrutiny, criticism and protest. By chance it coincided with Queen Elizabeth's Silver Jubilee celebrations. Hardly anyone would sell it, let alone play it on the radio, and the band were prevented from playing at any venues. Till this day it is the "most heavily censored record in British history". In England the monarchy is considered a God-established institution, and to mock the Queen is seen as a form of sacrilege.

On June 7 that year it was arranged by the record label for a private boat to have the Sex Pistols perform while sailing down the River Thames, passing Westminster Pier and the Houses of Parliament. The event, a mockery of the Queen's river procession planned for two days later, ended in chaos. Police launches forced the boat to dock, and constabulary surrounded the gangplanks at the pier. While the band members and their equipment were hustled down a side stairwell, many of the band's entourage were arrested. Soon after they were released on bail.

Watch Video: Remembering the 1977 Sex Pistols' Jubilee Boat Trip

After 35 years it was announced this year that "God Save the Queen" was being re-released in honor of Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee, and surely the Pussy Riot trial makes it just as relevant as ever. But this likely would not have been so if everything was handled much more wisely and the Russian courts learned from history rather than repeated it, and even now have gone beyond it.

It may be a good thing however that the Pussy Riot girls will be in jail for the next two years, unless the courts give in to the overwhelming pressure from around the world and release them sooner. History also tells us what happened to the Sex Pistols after their controversial trip along the Thames. Violent attacks on punk fans were on the rise. In mid-June lead singer Johnny Rotten himself was assaulted by a knife-wielding gang outside Islington's Pegasus pub, causing tendon damage to his left arm. Jamie Reid and Paul Cook were beaten up in other incidents; three days after the Pegasus assault, Rotten was attacked again. Everywhere they played there were huge protests, sometimes even outnumbering those who attended the concert. The band eventually only released one album and broke up during their first tour of the United States, which began with strong protests in the Bible-belt states. Maybe two years in prison will be enough time to calm everyone down a bit, but only the future will tell. However, it was within those two years that the Sex Pistols had already broken up and gone their separate ways.

A Statement of Nadia Tolokonnikova (Pussy Riot)

Members of the punk band Pussy Riot have found themselves in a Kafkaesque situation, to say the least. An interesting and important essay by Pussy Riot member Nadia Tolokonikovoy has appeared on the Free Pussy Riot website. Though most would find the incident at Christ the Savior Cathedral disagreeable based on its shocking appearance, it is still important to examine the reasons that drove such behavior in the first place with a level headed mind and a discerning heart. Extreme events or situations usually are a reaction to opposing extreme events or situations. Art that appears grotesque, often serves as a means to provoke deeper thought on an issue that indeed requires deeper thought. Denial sometimes needs to be provoked into acceptance. Anyone who follows the numerous attempts of government censorship in Russia will understand that an implosion was inevitable.

Art and the Human Manifesto of Nadia Tolokonnikova

The punk band Pussy Riot, which I belong to, is a musical group that conducts unexpected performances in different urban spaces. Pussy Riot’s songs address topical political issues. The interests of the group members are: political activism, ecology, and the elimination of authoritarian tendencies in the Russian state system through the creation of the civil society.

Since its origin in October 2011, the band played concerts in the subway, on the roof of a trolleybus, on the roof of the detention center for administrative detainees, in clothing stores, at fashion shows, and on the Lobnoe Mesto on Red Square. We believe that the art should be accessible to everyone; therefore we perform in diverse public spaces. Pussy Riot never means to show any disrespect to any viewers or witnesses of our punk concerts. This was the case on the roof of the trolleybus and on the Lobnoe Mesto, and this was the case at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

On 21 February 2012 Pussy Riot band performed its punk prayer “Hail Mary, Expel Putin” at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. In the early March 2012 three members of the group were imprisoned because of the music and political activism. The themes of our songs and performances are dictated by the present moment. We simply react to what is happening in our country, and our punk performances express the opinion of a sufficiently large number of people. In our song “Hail Mary, Expel Putin” we reflected the reaction of many Russian citizens to the patriarch’s calls for votes for Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin during the presidential election of 4 March 2012.

We, like many of our fellow citizens, wrestle against treachery, deceit, bribery, hypocrisy, greed, and lawlessness, peculiar to the current authorities and rulers. This is why we were upset by this political initiative of the patriarch and could not fail to express that. The performance at Cathedral of Christ the Savior was committed not on the grounds of religious enmity and hatred. Equally, we harbor no hatred towards Orthodox Christians. Orthodox Christianity worships the same as we do: mercy, forgiveness, justification, love, and freedom. We are not enemies of Christianity. We care about the opinion of Orthodox Christians. We want all of them to be on our side - on the side of anti-authoritarian civil society activists. That is why we came to the Cathedral.

We came with what we have and can: with our musical performance. During this performance we intended to express our concern: the rector of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and the head of the Russian Orthodox Church - the patriarch - supports a politician who forcefully suppresses the civil society, which is dear to us.

I would like to emphasize the fact that, while at the Cathedral, we did not utter any insulting words towards the Church, the Christians, and God. The words we spoke and our entire punk performance aimed to express our disapproval of a specific political event: the patriarch’s support of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, who took an authoritarian and antifeminist course. Our performance contained no aggression towards the audience, but only a desperate desire to change the political situation in Russia for the better. Our emotions and expressiveness came from that desire. If our passion appeared offensive to any spectators, we are sorry for that. We had no intentions to offend anyone. We wish that those, who cannot understand us, would forgive us. Most of all, we want people to hold no grudges against us.

We very much wish that people would not see our denial of guilt under the Article 213 (Part 2) of the Russian Criminal Code as audacity, insolence, or our unwillingness or inability to admit our mistakes. It seems to me that those who were distressed by our songs tend to take our denial of guilt that way. I believe that we are all victims of the most perfect misunderstanding and confusion of words and legal terms.

My key point is that I separate the legal and ethical assessments of our performance “Hail Mary, Expel Putin”. This is a very important, probably the most important, thing in this proceeding. I insist that the criminal side of this story must not be confused with the ethical one. The fact is that our denial of guilt does not mean our unwillingness to explain our actions and apologize for the distress brought by our performance, and I would like everyone, especially the victims, to try to understand that.

My assessment of the ethics of the Pussy Riot punk prayer is this: our ethical mistake was that we allowed bringing our newly developed genre — the unexpected political punk performance — to the cathedral. We did not think that our actions might offend some. In fact, we performed in various places in Moscow since October 2011, and everywhere — in the subway, in stores, on the roof of the detention center, on the Lobnoe Mesto – people perceived our actions with humor, cheerfulness, or, at the very least, with irony. Similarly, based on our experience of the previous performances, we had no idea that the punk performance could hurt or offend someone. If anyone was offended by our performance at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, then I am ready to admit that we made an ethical mistake. This is, indeed, a mistake because we had no conscious intention to offend anyone. Our ethical - I emphasize, ethical, and not the criminal — fault lies in the fact that we allowed ourselves to respond to the patriarch’s call to vote for Vladimir Putin by our performance at the Cathedral, and, therefore, by sharing our political position with the audience. This is our ethical lapse, and I emphasize and acknowledge it, and I apologies for it.

However, our ethical slip matches no article of the Criminal Code.

We have been in prison for five months now, but our actions do not constitute a crime. The violation of rules of church conduct substantially differs from the accusations of hate and enmity towards the entire Orthodox religion and all believers that we now face. One does not follow from the other. I shudder every time I read the indictment that we have come to the cathedral out of contempt and hatred towards Christians. These are terrible, very bad words and incredibly strong, terrible accusations. Our motivation was purely political and artistic. I agree, perhaps, we did not have an ethical right to bring them to the cathedral’s ritual space. But we do not hate anyone.

Think about it: what are hatred and enmity? None of them is a joke. No one may label people with them just like that. Perjury is happening here. For five months we have been suffering from slander. It is not easy for me to withstand the cynical and cruel labeling with the feelings that I have not experienced to any living being on earth. The prosecution accuses us of hiding our true motives (which supposedly are religious hatred and enmity) to avoid punishment. However, we do not lie because we have principles, and one of which is: always telling the truth. We did not betray our principles, even though the investigators detained us, forcing us to admit our guilt under the Article 231 (Part 2). Such admittance would label us with the false motive — hatred and enmity — and crush and destroy us as honest people. The investigators repeatedly told us, if we plea guilty, we would be released. We refused.

If we admit our guilt under the Article 231 (Part 2), we will defame ourselves. The truth is precious to us more than anything, even more than the freedom. Thus, I think there is no reason not to trust our words. We will not lie, for sure. The content of our laptops and hard drives is presented in the criminal case, and it refutes the version of the prosecution. These materials prove that we did not have religious hatred or enmity as our motive. Anyone who reads the content of our laptops and hard drives will clearly see that our motivation was purely political. The Volumes 3 and 4 of our criminal case contain our criticism of Putin’s authoritarian policies and our reflections about the benefits of peaceful civil protests. The Volumes 3 and 4 contain the texts about feminism and interviews with the Pussy Riot band. Not a single word is about religious hatred or enmity.

In all those laptops and hard drives, the prosecution has found not a single piece of evidence confirming this motive, and now it is trying to get out of their predicament by magically making illogical conclusions. In our interviews after our performance on 21 February 2012, we repeatedly said that we treated Christianity with great consideration and respect. The prosecution, realizing their lack of evidence of our religious hatred, has resorted to the next move. They now claim that our statements of loyalty towards Christianity cover up our true attitude towards the religion, thus attempting to minimize the backlash against the illegal act committed at the Cathedral. These statements are illogical because we have publicly stated our positive attitude towards the religion on 21 February 2012 and on other dates – way before the news that a criminal case has been initiated.

The conclusion that we “revenge for Hypatia’s death”* is so absurd that even the ones who still doubted our motives, now realized: the prosecution has absolutely no evidence of the motive of hatred. Therefore neither the motive nor elements of crime exist.

Two expert reports, ordered by the investigation, found no motive of hatred or enmity in our actions. However, for some unfortunate reason, the indictment fails to mention these reports. The experts concluded that the song text, our activities, or the video do not contain any linguistic features of dishonor or insults towards Orthodox Christians, the Orthodox Church officials, or other groups. Neither do they contain any linguistic evidence of hostile attitudes towards the Orthodox religion, Orthodox believers, or people of other groups. Moreover, the experts noted that the behavior of our group had no psychological signs of hostility: the girls did not commit aggressive and violent acts against anyone.

In summary, we had no motive of religious hatred or enmity, neither did we conduct a crime under Article 213 (Part 2) of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation.

__________________________________________________________

* Translator’s note: Hypatia of Alexandria (born ca. AD 351-370, died AD 415) was an ancient Greek philosopher in Roman Egypt who was the fist historically noted woman in mathematics. She has taught philosophy and astronomy in Alexandria at the time when science was predominantly occupied by men. Hypatia was highly regarded for her knowledge, extraordinary dignity, and virtue. She died in an incident when Christian monks seized her on the street, beat her, and dragged her body to a church, where they mutilated her flesh and burned her remains. Please see Wikipedia for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia.

Original Source: echo.msk.ru

Fr. Victor Potapov On the Pussy Riot Case

Natalya Rostov

August 2, 2012

Slon

Father Victor Potapov, rector of St. John the Baptist in Washington, was born in Germany and since 1951 he has been living in America. The church, in which he serves, belongs to the Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. At the request of Slon, he expressed his opinion about what is going on in Moscow regarding the Pussy Riot case.

- I am an observer from the outside, and maybe I was not all that affected like people within the country. Of course, I am a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, but I was born in the West, in Germany, raised in America, and the situation is cultural, social, all around me - of the other. So I apologize in advance if someone is offended or grieve, in their own words.

Of course, what these girls did was deeply immoral. This is not an ethical mistake, it's immoral. They came into the holy place in the temple, the main temple of Russia, and in that which has been desecrated by the Bolsheviks and then restored (and we know that in a financial sense, maybe not the best). Nevertheless, it has been restored and is again a monument to the heroes, a monument of victory over Napoleon's invasion of Russia. And what, they get up in front of the altar. It's not Putin, Putin is not here (the temple is no place for political demonstrations), and they spoke so many blasphemous things. Very little attention is paid to these words, saying only that they have insulted Putin, the Patriarch, but in fact they upset very many people. I want to say this first of all.

However, the noise which was raised around them is also upsetting. Before Russia there now faces great problems of moral character, and they deserve as much attention. But it seems the Church stuck to Pussy Riot (sorry, I pronounce this word, it is also offensive), stuck to this punk band, and I'm very sorry about this. On the other hand, the crisis caused by the group reveals huge flaws in modern society, as a believer and unbeliever.

- The girls just exposed the conflict between state, society and the Church, right?

- Yes. On the one hand, ensured are the democratic rights of such actions - it is deeply immoral. On the other hand, to punish them with long imprisonment - an obscurantist demand, almost dictatorial - it is immoral, too. I do not understand. I believe that the Church, we pastors, must appeal to the conscience. They sit there for a long time, some of them built up as martyrs, as often happens in such high-profile cases.

I am afraid that the time is lost, but of course it would be better to have a conversation with them, try to act on their conscience, tell the girls that what they've done is deeply offensive, immoral. To be punished, of course, would be necessary, but not so long sitting in a prison or jail, and even more so, not for a seven-year period, as many suggest. We should get them to work in any establishment: a shelter or a hospice.

- There is much attention focused on the court, and many go on calling it the Inquisition, and this creates bitterness all the more. What do we do with it, with the exasperation, which is reproduced?

- I hope that thinking people can see it. I hope that they will write, discuss this problem - the lack of mercy, the heating of cruelty which people are calling for. This should be discussed, but not how it was done so far - either-or. We must come to some compromise. Mindful people and the Church should think again, it is necessary to make the congregation settled down, and not contribute to the bitterness.

Frankly, I'm disappointed in the representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, shown on television. (Or, as they were before, because now I notice it less. Before the election, there often were programs on Russian television of interest - round tables, discussions - and now they have ceased to transmit). Their responses are inadequate in this case, and they have deeply disappointed me, unfortunately. I will not name names.

- They are known for these things. And it is clear who you mean. In 2007, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the ROC came together and now it is a Church. Is there some way to bring this issue up to the Patriarch to his environment? Is there any way to influence them?

- We have to work? I think that we will not publicly call on the Patriarch to pardon or appeal to his conscience. I think it needs to be a man on his level. And I hope that our Metropolitan Hilarion, who was recently in Moscow, spoke on the topic. I do not know, but I hope so.

In any case, I as a priest of the capital of a parish, I tell you that I am deeply confused by the representatives of the Church in this matter, although, again, the act of the girls is deeply immoral. I have subscribed to Google - on my computer comes up to everything about Russian Orthodoxy, and I see that both the media and bloggers only talk about it. And what is the theme? The apartment of the patriarch, the patriarch consecrated the church of the FSB, that's all. At the same time I know that in Russia there is spiritual life, there are many dedicated pastors, priests, believers across the country, but nobody is paying attention, because all are eclipsed by the scandals. I do not want to say that the Church came up with these scandals, but somehow it has lost control of the situation. How to explain this, I do not know. But in the end, after eighty years of atheism, maybe it is all growing pains? Maybe we should expect that the bishops and pastors will make mistakes in the way of development? But I hope that we recognize this error and correct them.

- I wanted to ask this question to you, as someone who has lived in the West all your life. Now many people think about what would happen if the same did not happen in Russia. What the punishment should have been in America?

- I heard that California has a law that punishes such an act with a year in prison. They may make a conditional sentence, to force people to go clean up in the church or to care for homeless people.

- A year?

- Yes. It would be good to find a law to quote it, but here it is, in California, a progressive state, as well as in other states - I do not know.

- You are not faced with such?

- Thank God, no.

If a teenager is guilty of something, drove a car without a license, disorderly conduct, the judge usually sentences up to 48 hours of community ministries. And, if it is a child of my parishioners, I suggest to them that he work with us in the church. They help to clean, and I am writing a letter that they had worked with us in the church, and it is accepted.

- Accepted by the state, you mean?

- Yes, and it is good. The child benefits society, and returns him to his duty in the temple, the holy place, which has a definite impact.

The Bolsheviks after the Revolution, every day, destroyed, desecrated churches. And what could the Russian Church do about it?...

It seems to me that the Cathedral of Christ the Savior is now safe to go to, but became the focus of some extremists. Honest! After the antics of these girls, as in any big city, it attracts strange people - again, to emulate.

- In Sevastopol yesterday already they tried.

- Well, you see. It's like during the mass murders in America, when people are afraid that someone wants to copy the murder.

- I found the quote. The Bishop of the Diocese of Ishim and Siberia Nikon called the current trial, "the result of merging the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate and the State." You may also comment on this?

- I can not say so categorically, as he did.

I was born in the West, and I really like our system. I feel good, the government is no pressure on me. In this time as a member of "Voices of America" ​​I could be with the protesters near the White House to protest against the bombing of Yugoslavia in America, and did not fear that I would be dismissed.

We pray here, many American Orthodox, and it is - the best. And when the church was too close to the state, there is always a lot of temptations. The Church must be the conscience of the people, it should have the right to speak freely, without looking around, not depending on the bureaucrats. I am afraid that in Russia, unfortunately, there is the opposite. I do not like it.

- It seems that Orthodoxy becomes an instrument of policy.

- Maybe. I hope they come to their senses and will not allow it.

One reason for this - that the Church believes that the state must return what it lost. The current government considers itself the successor to the Soviet, which destroyed everything, and the Church wants the state to restore the loss. And then what? I do not know. Again, I do not live there, but I'm certainly interested in and root for Russia, even for the Russian athletes who are sick, no matter how strange....

- But perhaps such a separation of Church and state in America can not be there?

- Probably not. I hope that the system will be at least similar to that which exists in some European countries, at least at this formal level, such as in Finland. There it is the official religion - Lutheranism and Orthodoxy - and the state does not intervene, but give some privileges. Where to go? The Russian Church after all, is a church with thousands of years of history in Russian life, it certainly plays a role. The Church created the Russian culture and statehood. It should have some privileges.

- You've met with government officials in their lifetime. As these contacts were formed with you? How did you apply yourself?

- With great deference, with respect. When Reagan was president, I was invited as an informal adviser on religious affairs in the Soviet Union, it was a purely honorary title. The fact that they paid attention to the Orthodox Church, speaks of the deep esteem in which the American state has for the Church.

Of course, we also have problems, many social issues - the issue of gay marriage, homosexuality is being discussed. But I can not get to perform such marriages, it is an internal church matter. If I refuse to make such a marriage, my parish does not take away the special tax status (we are exempted from income tax), I will speak out, and no one will chase me for it. In America, the office is genuine, constitutional, and it is firmly secured.

- And you had to deny the commission of such marriages?

- No. Thank God, no.

- If they will come to you, you refuse, that's what you mean by that?

- If Orthodox come to me of the same sex, I will explain that this is totally unacceptable from our point of view, and they may not consider themselves Orthodox Christians and to enter into such a marriage. Plain and simple.

- But then there will be extensive discussion on this topic.

- My job as a priest is to have a heart to heart talk with people. If someone comes, I'm not going to raise a stink, I'll just explain our point of view.

- Last question. What's next for the Girls?

- I, like the church people, think that the Church should stand up for them, the Church should be merciful, but do not need to justify, of course, their actions. My opinion is that the Church must demand their release, or give another punishment. Other priests may disagree, but I think that most priests will tell you they can not be punished so severely, and it is completely inadequate. We must be merciful, and not to forget the teaching of Christ, and Christ from the cross saying to His torturers, "Lord, forgive them, they do not know what they do". Otherwise, what are we - heathen?

Translation by John Sanidopoulos

Russian Film Stars Support Orthodox Church In New Book

Marc Bennetts
April 18, 2012
RIA Novosti

With Russia’s powerful Orthodox Church facing a wave of criticism from what it has called supporters of “radical liberal values,” a Christian publisher presented on Wednesday a book on the religious beliefs of stars of show business and film.

“The Church has always been persecuted,” actor and presenter Boris Korchevnikov, just one of the 35 celebrities featured in the “The Stars On Heaven” book, told a downtown Moscow news conference. “And today we are seeing more persecution – just in a different form.”

Celebrities interviewed in the book, released by the Moscow-based Nikeya publishers, include Oscar-winning film director Nikita Mikhalkov, actor Yevgeny Mironov, and rock star Leonid Fyodorov. Famed Serbian film director – and Orthodox Christian – Emir Kusturica is also featured.

The presentation comes ahead of an April 22 “defense of the faith” nationwide prayer called by the Orthodox Church to protect it from attacks by “"anti-Russian forces.”

The Church’s Supreme Council said in a statement earlier this month that it had been targeted by “those pushing through radical liberal values” over its opposition to same-sex marriages and consumerism.

But while Orthodox Church spokesman Vladimir Legoida denied the book was designed to shore up support for Russia’s Christian establishment, he also admitted the timing of its release was fortuitous.

“There is no such thing as a coincidence for God,” he said. “But this is not our answer to bloggers.”

Orthodox Church head Patriarch Kirill was condemned by opposition figures for his public backing of Vladimir Putin in the run-up to the ex-KGB spy’s landslide victory at March 4 presidential polls. The patriarch called the 12 years of Putin's rule a "miracle of God" in a televised meeting, triggering a high-profile protest by all-female punk group Pussy Riot at Moscow’s largest cathedral.

Top Church officials have also been criticized by bloggers and by opposition media for their “lavish” lifestyles. The anti-Putin Novaya Gazeta newspaper also alleged in February a pre-patriarch-era Kirill profited from Church tobacco and alcohol sales in the early 1990s.

Patriarch Kirill was also at the center of a scandal this month regarding a $30,000 Breguget watch, which was airbrushed – although its reflection remained intact – out of an official Church photo following public indignation over his possession of the luxury timepiece. The patriarch had admitted owning the watch in an interview prior to the row, but said he never wore it. Famous blogger and anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny - an Orthodox believer - called the incident “shameful.”

Patriarch Kirill was first spotted wearing the watch in 2009, while he was preaching austerity as a way out of an economic crisis.

But a spokesperson for Nikeya publishers stressed on Wednesday that the book contained no explicit expressions of support for the beleaguered patriarch.

A number of celebrities featured in the book express however the conviction that only religious belief can save Russia and Russians.

“Without belief, Russians transform into beasts,” says director Mikhalkov, who won an Oscar for the 1994 film "Burnt by the Sun."

“Russians are afraid of very little. That’s why they need the fear of God the most,” says television presenter Yury Vyazemsky. “Morals alone will not save them.”

“The first steps to the Church are very easy, as if God himself is leading you by the hand,” says actor Andrei Merzlikin, star of the popular gangster film "Boomer."

The release of the book coincided with a scandal involving pop star Filipp Kirkorov, who was photographed speaking at the altar of Moscow’s Ilya Proprok church during the April 8 christening of his daughter. Church officials said Kirkorov, the former husband of Russian pop icon Alla Pugachyova, may face excommunication.

Pussy Riot accused police of hypocrisy for not detaining Kirkorov. Three members of the all-female punk group face up to seven years behind bars after being detained in March over their performance of an anti-Putin song at the altar of the Christ the Savior Cathedral.

“Three Pussy Riot suspects have been behind bars for over a month for exactly the same thing,” the group said in a blog statement earlier this month.

Many Russian People Lack Nobility, says Russian Bishop

April 9, 2012
Interfax

The Head of the Synodal Department for Church Charities and Social Work Bishop Panteleimon of Smolensk and Vyazma said that attacks against the Church are getting the form of personal attacks against the Patriarch, "collecting gossips, slander."

"I believe it speaks against these people, who spread various filth, rather than against the Patriarch. Our people brought up in Soviet times entirely lost inner nobility, and became similar to Ham of the Bible," the Bishop said in his interview published by the Neskushny Sad Orthodox magazine.

He sees still another side in the campaign against the Patriarch.

"I believe that our Soviet history, when Bolsheviks seized power by force, made our people lose the correct attitude to any power - they lost respect for those who are above them. Modern people don't accept a respective attitude to any power. And I think it's Ham's sin too," Bishop Panteleimon said.

He reminded how much Patriarch Kirill did to revive church life.

"He more than others backs up the social work of the Church - if it was not his initiative, social activities of the Church won't develop so actively as they do. The things he does to revive church life have never been done before in Russia. And in response he gets threats and insults," the hierarch said.

According to him, the Patriarch has an "inhumanly tough schedule, he sleeps few hours, he always works though he is not a young man."

"He doesn't have any personal time at all - all his life is given to church work. To blow up a campaign of slander against him - is something mean that is most vividly expressed in the biblical personality of Ham," the bishop believes.

Read also:

One More Time About the Watch

Watching Patriarch Kirill Discredit Himself

Plight of Punk Rockers Turns Russians Against the Church

Pro-Putin clerics under fire over harsh treatment of Pussy Riot women who protested in cathedral.

Shaun Walker
April 5, 2012
The Independent

Amnesty International said yesterday that members of the Pussy Riot punk group who were being held in custody for performing in a cathedral were "prisoners of conscience", in a controversy that has sparked a backlash against the Russian Orthodox Church.

There has been criticism from many quarters that the Church has not taken a more humane approach to the case. The band recorded a brief song in Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral in the run-up to presidential elections in March, calling on the Virgin Mary to "chase [Vladimir] Putin out".

They themselves were then chased out of the cathedral by security and were later arrested. Maria Alekhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Yekaterina Samusevich could all be jailed for up to seven years if they are found guilty of hooliganism charges.

Amnesty said the arrest is "not a justifiable response to the peaceful (if, to many, offensive) expression of their political beliefs" and called on Russia to release the three women.

Russia is at least nominally a majority Orthodox country, and even many liberal Russians were disgusted by Pussy Riot's stunt in the cathedral, and called for them to be punished.

But the refusal to release the three women on bail has turned public opinion in their favour. Many people called on the head of the Church, Patriarch Kirill, or the official Church bodies to ask the state to show mercy and release the women, but instead Patriarch Kirill described them as doing the work of Satan and said they should be punished in full accordance with the law. After Patriarch Kirill's stern rebuke, the Russian blogosphere lit up with rumours about his alleged extravagant lifestyle.

The Patriarch was accused by eagle-eyed bloggers last month of wearing a watch made by the Swiss manufacturer Breguet and worth over £20,000. When journalists demanded to know where the watch came from, Patriarch Kirill said that although he had been gifted such a watch, he had never worn it, and any photographs where he appeared to be wearing it were fakes.

However, a number of photographs on his own website appear to show that he has worn the watch.

Patriarch Kirill has also come under scrutiny for a dispute involving a central Moscow flat in his name, in which his distant relatives live. They are suing their neighbours for around £400,000, claiming that repair work caused their apartment to be filled with dust.

A spokesman has said it is "unethical" for the Patriarch's private life to be discussed. The Russian Orthodox Church yesterday hit back, accusing unspecified foreign forces of mounting a campaign against it in retaliation for its support of President Putin.

"The attacks have become more prominent during the pre-election and post-election period," said the Supreme Church Council in a statement yesterday, apparently referring to both the performance by Pussy Riot and the scandals. "[This] shows their political and also anti-Russian motives."

Over the past decade, the Orthodox Church has thrown its weight behind Mr Putin, in return for a more prominent role in society.