Talk:Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill

Decades long process

@Axxxion: which part of my reversion of content to revision 705103829 with references from 705153963 did you think was "fantasies"?

You do realize that using {{diff}} shows others the content from revision 705103829 and the references from revision 705153963 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)

@Axxxion: are you saying that "decades-long process" is too simplistic?

• The link to 13 February BBC article was in the created article 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 was added 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)

@Axxxion: 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)

@Axxxion: 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 see here. 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 other example). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC); modified 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: 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 [1] -- to little avail, as her position was isolated by every one else (other local orthodox churches): SEE Ravenna Document e.g. [2]. 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)

@Axxxion: 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 {{efn}}, 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)

@Axxxion: bilateral dialogue means a discourse 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 added start years to the Background section. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Kirill in interfax-religion.ru

I wrote before (here and here) 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 (this revision) that I disagree with elsewhere on this talk page is:

According to the ROC senior official, the document did not attempt to mend any of the persisting doctrinal and ecclesiastical differences between the two churches,

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 (these edits) that creates contradiction with the above is:

Speaking to news media several days after the meeting, Patriarch Kirill said, citing as the reason "powerful forces opposing such meeting" (apart from the fearful Orthodox faithful), that the meeting had had to be prepared in strict secrecy; he also stressed that not a single theological issue had been discussed.

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)

@Axxxion: 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)

@Axxxion:

• 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)

@Axxxion: 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)

@Axxxion: 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)

@Axxxion: no, not to bowdlerise (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 this edit and improved in this edit.

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:

1. The meeting was private and was not televised.
2. 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 [3]; 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)

@Axxxion: 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)

@Axxxion: 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 removed the paragraph. –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.

Others believed that Kirill violated the principle of sobornost by not discussing the meeting and joint statement with other bishops during a February synod. (newsru.com)

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.) — BoBoMisiu — continues after insertion below

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 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&u=http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133115.html%7C2=translation).
• 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 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&u=http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133121.html%7C2=translation).
• The Bishops' Synod defines the character of relations with non-Orthodox confessions (ch. 3 art. 1 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&u=http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133124.html%7C2=translation).
• 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 § зhttps://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&u=http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133126.html%7C2=translation), 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 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&u=http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133128.html%7C2=translation). 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. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&u=http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/418840.html%7C2=translation).

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)

@Axxxion: no, I am not disruptive – you removed the {{discuss}} 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.

@75.73.150.255: 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 used sobornost in an expansion. 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 suggestion above is to add supporting background about synod.

I agree with you about the patriarchia.ru reference added by Axxxion 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#"Catholic" as a mark 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)

@Axxxion: 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 I wrote elsewhere 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)

@Axxxion: 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)

@75.73.150.255: 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:

The meeting and the text of the Declaration caused negative reactions from a part of the ROC clergy and faithful. The critics inter alia pointed out the fact that in contravention to the Orthodox principle of synodality (sobornost), the event anf the Declaration′s text had not been discussed by the Patriarch with other bishops at the Bishops′ Council that was held in early February 2016.
— Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill 2016-02-25T16:45:17

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 discussed above 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 {{cite news}}.

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 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&u=http://dsnmp.ru/%7C2=home page, of the https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&u=http://dsnmp.ru/otkryitoe-pismo-nastoyatelya-svyato-troitskogo-hrama-g-baykalska-protoiereya-vladislava-emelyanova/%7C2=dsnmp.ru page linked from newsru.com, 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 Dmitry Tsorionov, 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.

References

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