Russian Orthodox Patriarch refuses to recognise Catholic diocese in Russia

[Isa_Almisry]

Wasn’t it also the Russian Orthodox who aided the communists in butchering helpless Catholics?

I’m sorry, your post reminds me of Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/Kino3.jpg

 

[Alexius]

Meanwhile, the Orthodox have established their own Bishop of Rome. This double standard reveals the nature of Orthodoxy. Duplicity.

No, not in terms of a Pope, but there are local leaders…

Please do not use the term Uniate. It is offensive.

No, it isn’t. Even the internal memos of Rome reveal this term…

Wasn’t it also the Russian Orthodox who aided the communists in butchering helpless Catholics?

That’s quite an accusation…I highly doubt the Orthodox approved of these killings anymore than Rome approved of the Sack of Constantinople…

And so, we must still pray for the conversion of Russia.

Yes, pray for the people to return to the Christ…

This is stupid for the Moscow Patriarchate to not recognized them. The Russian Catholics have always been there for crying out loud. They been for a long time even long before the East West Schism.

No, since Christianity was accepted in Russia less than a century before. Besides, the Christians of Russia were Byzantine and not Roman, so when Rome excommunicated Constantinople, that included the Russians.

On top of that, the Russian Orthodox Church recently allowed for Opus Dei to set up a chapter in Moscow…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Mannyfit75]

No, since Christianity was accepted in Russia less than a century before. Besides, the Christians of Russia were Byzantine and not Roman, so when Rome excommunicated Constantinople, that included the Russians.

On top of that, the Russian Orthodox Church recently allowed for Opus Dei to set up a chapter in Moscow…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

I look at Wikipedia, and many of the Catholic Church in Russia are Byzantine Catholic. Note I said Catholic, no where did I mention Roman Rite. I did write, Russian Catholics. Where did you get the general idea where I implied Roman Rite Catholic?

 

[Alexius]

I look at Wikipedia, and many of the Catholic Church in Russia are Byzantine Catholic. Note I said Catholic, no where did I mention Roman Rite. I did write, Russian Catholics. Where did you get the general idea where I implied Roman Rite Catholic?

I didn’t get that impression. How is it that the Russian Catholics have been there longer, though? The fact is that all the East was excommunicated without exception. Their beliefs were always Orthodox and therefore subjected to Rome’s excommunication.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Perhaps this is similar to the way Catholics feel about Protestants doing missional work in areas where Catholics are the dominant faith.

Not quite. There has always been a Latin Church presence in Russia.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Correct, they were always there.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I didn’t get that impression. How is it that the Russian Catholics have been there longer, though? The fact is that all the East was excommunicated without exception. Their beliefs were always Orthodox and therefore subjected to Rome’s excommunication.

I didn’t say they were there longer. I’m just saying they been there just as long as the Eastern Orthodox Russians.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I didn’t say they were there longer. I’m just saying they been there just as long as the Eastern Orthodox Russians.

Now I’m going to have to ask, where have these Latin/uniates been in Russia, and by that I mean the present canonical territoryof the PoM?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now I’m going to have to ask, where have these Latin/uniates been in Russia, and by that I mean the present canonical territoryof the PoM?

I am no expert at all, but I have talked to a Russian Catholic, and as I recall, there are some in Moscow and Belarus. Not too many, but they are there. I don’t know where else. Some of the Old Believers joined with them. As I understand it, the Old Believers hold that the Patriarch of Moscow introduced innovations which departed from the age-old traditions of the Russian Church, and started a new one of his own.

I assume by the PoM, you mean the Patriarch of Moscow. I’m not sure what all territory he claims, but I have gathered in these forums that Ukraine is part of it. For sure, there have always been Latin Catholics in western Ukraine, at least since Christianity came there. I don’t know when the Ukrainian Rite Catholics in Ukraine reunified with Rome, but hundreds of thousands of Catholic Ukrainians, both Latin and of the Ukrainian Catholic Church were scattered all over the Gulags. I’m not sure whether the Patriarch of Moscow claims jurisdiction over Poland or not. Perhaps you could clarify the territory claimed by the Russian Patriarch. I think he claims China too, doesn’t he? Korea? Oh, and I think Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California too. Am I right about those?

But it would seem to me the Russian Patriarch ought to allow organized Latin ministry to the Catholic Eastern Europeans spread all over Russia in the “Gulag diaspora” of the Soviet Empire, in the same sort of way he feels it proper to have Russian Orthodox jurisdiction over those areas he feels appropriate as part of the “Russian diaspora”. That would, of course, include allowing Catholic bishops. My goodness, those members of the “Russian disaspora” left voluntarily. Most of the Catholics scattered all over Russia were hauled there in cattle cars, and quite involuntarily. Seems to me they even have a better claim on conscience than the Russians abroad to have priests and bishops minister to them.

And, of course, there are an unknown number of Catholic “Volga Germans”, but likely not less than several hundred thousand, whose ancestors were invited to Russia by Catherine the Great, many of whom were also scattered throughout the Gulag archipelago by the Soviets in a sort of “Volgadeutsch disaspora”. Seems to me they ought to be able to have a bishop too, just like the Russian Orthodox in Vienna.

Then, too, there are those parts of Lithuania and Finland annexed by Russia and never given back, in which there are Latin Catholics, not all of whom were murdered or sent to the Gulags. And Koenigsberg and that part of East Prussia seized by the Soviets too. Well, I guess nearly all of the Catholics in Koenigsberg and East Prussia were expelled from their homes in the Soviet genocide and scattered in the Gulag diaspora. Still, any historical claim to exclusive jurisdiction in those conquered places seems pretty weak, dating only from 1945plus however many additional years it took the Russians to haul away the ones they didn’t kill outright, and replace them with Russians. Does the PoM claim exclusivity in those territories too?

Seems to me “canonical jurisdiction” is relevant only within a unified Church. Until that happens, it’s a meaningless concept, as the PoM clearly believes himself.

 

[Alexius]

I am no expert at all, but I have talked to a Russian Catholic, and as I recall, there are some in Moscow and Belarus. Not too many, but they are there. I don’t know where else. Some of the Old Believers joined with them. As I understand it, the Old Believers hold that the Patriarch of Moscow introduced innovations which departed from the age-old traditions of the Russian Church, and started a new one of his own.

I assume by the PoM, you mean the Patriarch of Moscow. I’m not sure what all territory he claims, but I have gathered in these forums that Ukraine is part of it. For sure, there have always been Latin Catholics in western Ukraine, at least since Christianity came there. I don’t know when the Ukrainian Rite Catholics in Ukraine reunified with Rome, but hundreds of thousands of Catholic Ukrainians, both Latin and of the Ukrainian Catholic Church were scattered all over the Gulags. I’m not sure whether the Patriarch of Moscow claims jurisdiction over Poland or not. Perhaps you could clarify the territory claimed by the Russian Patriarch. I think he claims China too, doesn’t he? Korea? Oh, and I think Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California too. Am I right about those?

First, the PoM in the 17th century, Patriarch Nikon, reformed the liturgy and prayer books to conform with Constantinople. Very few things were changed (if you want to call it a change) that it is hardly a reform. I sympathize with the Old Believers, but the return to a uniform liturgy was necessary. As for jurisdiction, the PoM claims jurisdiction over Moscow and All Russia as well as Japan, Ukraine, Latvia, Belarus, Moldova, Hungary and Estonia. My place of ancestry, Poland, has its own self-ruling church since the 20’s or so. Before that, it was under Russian jurisdiction.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[marlo]

well i was researching about this lately, and it seems that the traditions kept by the russian was older than the byzantines, as accepted by bishop ware in his book the Orthodox Church. like the 2 finger sign of the cross which may have been existed during the council of chalcedon preserved by the Russian Old Believers and now accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church as correct

First, the PoM in the 17th century, Patriarch Nikon, reformed the liturgy and prayer books to conform with Constantinople. Very few things were changed (if you want to call it a change) that it is hardly a reform. I sympathize with the Old Believers, but the return to a uniform liturgy was necessary. As for jurisdiction, the PoM claims jurisdiction over Moscow and All Russia as well as Japan, Ukraine, Latvia, Belarus, Moldova, Hungary and Estonia. My place of ancestry, Poland, has its own self-ruling church since the 20’s or so. Before that, it was under Russian jurisdiction.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Alexius]

well i was researching about this lately, and it seems that the traditions kept by the russian was older than the byzantines, as accepted by bishop ware in his book the Orthodox Church. like the 2 finger sign of the cross which may have been existed during the council of chalcedon preserved by the Russian Old Believers and now accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church as correct

It is viewed as a tradition, not Tradition.

 

[Alexius]

I don’t know when the Ukrainian Rite Catholics in Ukraine reunified with Rome, but hundreds of thousands of Catholic Ukrainians, both Latin and of the Ukrainian Catholic Church were scattered all over the Gulags.

In 1595-96, at the Union of Brest, under the Polish King…

 

[Ridgerunner]

As for jurisdiction, the PoM claims jurisdiction over Moscow and All Russia as well as Japan, Ukraine, Latvia, Belarus, Moldova, Hungary and Estonia. My place of ancestry, Poland, has its own self-ruling church since the 20’s or so. Before that, it was under Russian jurisdiction.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Does the Patriach who claims Poland, then, claim exclusive canonical jurisdiction, then, as the PoM apparently does of Japan, Ukraine, Latvia, Belarus, Moldove, Hungary and Estonia?

By what claim of right does the PoM claim there should be no Catholic bishops in each of those countries? I can sort of understand Latvia and Estonia, because Russia conquered those historically non-Orthodox countries as part of the deal with Hitler, then replaced part of the population with Russians, though I would think it embarrassing to claim jurisdiction on that basis.

You didn’t respond concerning East Prussia and Koenigsberg, where Russian genocide resulted in Russian populations after 1945. So I assume the PoM does claim exclusive canonical jurisdiction there.

Does the PoM claim the parts of Lithuania and Finland conquered and incorporated by Soviet Russia? So, is basis for the claim of canonical jurisdiction in those areas Soviet conquest?

But Hungary has been largely Catholic since the conversion of the pagan Magyars. Upon what does the PoM claim the right to keep Catholic bishops out of Hungary?

And Japan? When did Russia rule Japan? Upon what basis does the PoM claim the right to exclude Catholic bishops from Japan?

And does the Orthodox Patriarch of Poland claim there should be no Catholic bishops in Poland, as does the PoM in the areas in which he claims canonical jurisdiction?

You never did respond to the question why, if the PoM claims the right to appoint bishops in places like Vienna on the basis of a “Russian diaspora”, he simultaneously denies the same right to the Catholic Church, many of whose members were victims of the Russian “diaspora” of Catholic Eastern Europeans, Balts and Volga Germans into the Russian Gulags.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I was actually asking more about the claim that there have been Latin/uniates in Russaia forever (I perhaps should have emphasized that). I don’t dispute that they exist now.

Personally, I see the benefit of Latins and Protestants in Russia: keeps the clergy from being complacent, and on their toes about searching for lost sheep. But I also recognize that the Orthodox are vulnerable in their own lands now, and missionaries, both Latin and Protestant saying “now’s the time” (and I have heard that from them), brings up visions of the Teutonic Knights for Russians.

I am no expert at all, but I have talked to a Russian Catholic, and as I recall, there are some in Moscow and Belarus. Not too many, but they are there.

Yes, recent arrivals.

I don’t know where else. Some of the Old Believers joined with them.

So they aren’t remnents of an old uniate group, but a new unia. If they don’t rejoin PoM, I’d rather they become uniates. They are otherwise factious like the Protestants.

I assume by the PoM, you mean the Patriarch of Moscow.

Yes.

Historically (and that’s what I’m emphasizing), the territory of the Russian empire, and its missionary outreach. Today it would be the former Soviet republics, China (through North China, but there would be overlap with other jurisdictions), Japan, and certain parishes in the US.

I’m not sure what all territory he claims, but I have gathered in these forums that Ukraine is part of it.

Yes, the metripolia of Kiev was joined to PoM in 1686, her daughter (a succession of metropolitans of Kiev had settled in Moscow by 1326).

For sure, there have always been Latin Catholics in western Ukraine, at least since Christianity came there.

The area was Christianized by St. Methodius in Greater Moravia, which at the time used the rites of Constantinople, from which the missionaries came, but with supervision of Rome. Later, Rome’s jurisdiction was enforced by Latinization and suppression of the Slavic rites.

I don’t know when the Ukrainian Rite Catholics in Ukraine reunified with Rome,

1596, again not remnants of supporters of Rome, but brought in to avoid the severe penalties put on the Orthodox by the Lithuanian-Polish crown.

I’m not sure whether the Patriarch of Moscow claims jurisdiction over Poland or not.

Poland is now autocephalous.

Perhaps you could clarify the territory claimed by the Russian Patriarch. I think he claims China too, doesn’t he?

Yes and no. Russia Christianized the North (e.g. Harbin), and the largest mission center complex in the world before WWI was that of the ROC in Peking. But there are other jurisdictions in the South, spreading North (EP).

Korea?

Similar to China.

Oh, and I think Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California too. Am I right about those?

They were part of the Russia empire. And Russian missionaries were there first (not in Southern California, though. When the Orthodox got there, we received some martyrs curtesy of the Spanish Inquisition).

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

But it would seem to me the Russian Patriarch ought to allow organized Latin ministry to the Catholic Eastern Europeans spread all over Russia in the “Gulag diaspora” of the Soviet Empire, in the same sort of way he feels it proper to have Russian Orthodox jurisdiction over those areas he feels appropriate as part of the “Russian diaspora”.

Russia has a history with “organized Latin ministry” (see the Jesuits below).

That would, of course, include allowing Catholic bishops.

Of course the PoM would resist the formation of a Latin hierarchy, given that it has always led to trouble.

My goodness, those members of the “Russian disaspora” left voluntarily. Most of the Catholics scattered all over Russia were hauled there in cattle cars, and quite involuntarily. Seems to me they even have a better claim on conscience than the Russians abroad to have priests and bishops minister to them.

and if they stuck to the concept of just ministering to their own, their might be an argument on humanitarian grounds. But when you hear (as I often have) statements reiterating how “one can be fully Russian and Catholic,” the doubts about that rise.

Now, I don’t expect the Latins to disavow their idea of evangelism, but then they can’t complain when the ROC confronts it.

And, of course, there are an unknown number of Catholic “Volga Germans”, but likely not less than several hundred thousand, whose ancestors were invited to Russia by Catherine the Great, many of whom were also scattered throughout the Gulag archipelago by the Soviets in a sort of “Volgadeutsch disaspora”. Seems to me they ought to be able to have a bishop too, just like the Russian Orthodox in Vienna.

Would that be a Latin bishop, or Lutheran? The Latins were outnumbered 3:1.

and again, Russia remembers: the czar placed the pastoral care into the hands of the Jesuits, who were taking refuge in Russia. And Russia’s thanks?:

"The sound principles of Catholicism, however, were maintained and propagated by the Jesuits who, suppressed by the Holy See and exiled from the Catholic nations, found an asylum and the centre of their future revival in Russia. In 1779 Catharine II invited the Jesuits to exercise their ministry in White Russia, and in 1786 they had in Russia six colleges and 178 members. Their number increased so much that Pius VII re-established their order for Russia, where it returned to life under Father Gruber. In 1801 the society had 262 members, and 347 in 1811. The Jesuits retained a lively gratitude for the hospitality that they had received in Russia, and worked with zeal to convert it to Catholicism. "
newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm

It is just this gratitude that Alexy wants to avoid.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Then, too, there are those parts of Lithuania and Finland annexed by Russia and never given back, in which there are Latin Catholics,

The case of Lithuania and Finland are interesting, as the religious terminology of their languages show the Orthodox Slavs got their first. We know that Lithuanian royalty intermarried with the Orthodox, whereas the king remained pagan (though some were baptized Orthodox, and others professed, then renounced, the Latin church). A third of all present day Lithuanian surnames show Orthodox roots.

It was only with the conquest of Finland by the Latin Swedes, and the marriage of the Lithuania Duke Jagiello to Queen Jadwiga of Poland (the Uninion of Krevo required the pagan Jagiello to be baptized Latin and force that faith on his Orthodox subjects), that Latins began to appear in those areas.

However, a large number of the Finns remained Orthodox (it’s now the second state Church), and those who didn’t, went Lutheran (the primary religion there). Orthodoxy even went on from there into Norway (Neiden)

not all of whom were murdered or sent to the Gulags. And Koenigsberg and that part of East Prussia seized by the Soviets too. Well, I guess nearly all of the Catholics in Koenigsberg and East Prussia were expelled from their homes in the Soviet genocide and scattered in the Gulag diaspora.

Much of that population was destroyed by WWII by the allies (it was Germany, after all) before the Red Army arrived. I don’t know how many Latins there were, as it was Lutheran 5:1 (a branch of my family hails from Prussia).

Still, any historical claim to exclusive jurisdiction in those conquered places seems pretty weak, dating only from 1945

Only for Prussia. The other claims go back to the dawn of Christinization. And for Prussia, the Lutherans have more claim, unless you want to play up the Teutonic Order, which doesn’t obviously play well in Russia.

plus however many additional years it took the Russians to haul away the ones they didn’t kill outright,

After her allies (Britain, US, Poland, etc.) had helped in the carnage. It was Nazi Germany, and WWII.

and replace them with Russians. Does the PoM claim exclusivity in those territories too?

Given the association of the area with the Teutonic Order, and all that that conjures up in Russia, I’d say yes. Btw, Alexy is of Baltic German nobility, von Rudiger.

Seems to me “canonical jurisdiction” is relevant only within a unified Church.

Yes, I would agree life would be easier.

Until that happens, it’s a meaningless concept, as the PoM clearly believes himself.

Russia doesn’t have a history of desposing bishops in other patriarchates and replacing them with Orthodox ones.

 

[Arthur22124]

The case of Lithuania and Finland are interesting, as the religious terminology of their languages show the Orthodox Slavs got their first. We know that Lithuanian royalty intermarried with the Orthodox, whereas the king remained pagan (though some were baptized Orthodox, and others professed, then renounced, the Latin church). A third of all present day Lithuanian surnames show Orthodox roots.

It was only with the conquest of Finland by the Latin Swedes, and the marriage of the Lithuania Duke Jagiello to Queen Jadwiga of Poland (the Uninion of Krevo required the pagan Jagiello to be baptized Latin and force that faith on his Orthodox subjects), that Latins began to appear in those areas.

However, a large number of the Finns remained Orthodox (it’s now the second state Church), and those who didn’t, went Lutheran (the primary religion there). Orthodoxy even went on from there into Norway (Neiden)

Much of that population was destroyed by WWII by the allies (it was Germany, after all) before the Red Army arrived. I don’t know how many Latins there were, as it was Lutheran 5:1 (a branch of my family hails from Prussia).

Only for Prussia. The other claims go back to the dawn of Christinization. And for Prussia, the Lutherans have more claim, unless you want to play up the Teutonic Order, which doesn’t obviously play well in Russia.

After her allies (Britain, US, Poland, etc.) had helped in the carnage. It was Nazi Germany, and WWII.

Given the association of the area with the Teutonic Order, and all that that conjures up in Russia, I’d say yes. Btw, Alexy is of Baltic German nobility, von Rudiger.

Yes, I would agree life would be easier.

Russia doesn’t have a history of desposing bishops in other patriarchates and replacing them with Orthodox ones.

As I understand it, the Latins in Russia are mostly expats. But I am not sure it is relevant what particular history got them there. They are Latins and the MP is not competent to care for them pastorally. They need and deserve pastoral care from their church as much as any Orthodox anywhere in the world.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Does the Patriach who claims Poland, then, claim exclusive canonical jurisdiction, then, as the PoM apparently does of Japan, Ukraine, Latvia, Belarus, Moldove, Hungary and Estonia?

He has exclusive canonical jurisdiction, granted by Constantinople (to deal with the problems of interwar Poland: Warsaw Cathedral was torn down, along with hundreds of others, in addition to hundreds being Latinized, law suits against the Orthodox Church to seize properties, etc., official persecution etc. The priest’s wife where I was received lived there during that time, and the police used to drag the priest out in full vestments from the altar to force him to dance like a bear for their amusement), and then Moscow (to regularize the situation).

Btw, the first established archbishop on what is now Poland was St. Methodius, who forbade the filioque, sent by Constantinople but ordained by Rome (who at the time also forbade the filioque). The Easter Orthodox came in as the Latins did. The king, however, sided with the Latin church. Caesaropapism? Cuius regio, eius religio?

By what claim of right does the PoM claim there should be no Catholic bishops in each of those countries? I can sort of understand Latvia and Estonia, because Russia conquered those historically non-Orthodox countries as part of the deal with Hitler, then replaced part of the population with Russians, though I would think it embarrassing to claim jurisdiction on that basis.

Now you really put your foot in it.

Orthodoxy arrived in Estonia in the 10th cent., Latvia in the 11th. It was suppressed with the Latin Northern Crusades in the 13th cent., but survived.

I am not aware of forced conversions when the Russians gained the territory in the 18th cent., but I know of several mass voluntary conversions, ncluding that of PoM Alexy’s ancestors.

Alexy was born in Estonia, baptized in Estonia, raised in Estonia (all before Hitler) took monastic vows in Estonia, ordained in Estonia, .elevated to bishop in Estonia (of Estonia and Latvia). Btw, one of the areas of contention between Estonia and Russia, Petseri, grew around a 15th cent. Orthodox monastery. so no, it doesn’t date from Hitler.

You didn’t respond concerning East Prussia and Koenigsberg, where Russian genocide resulted in Russian populations after 1945. So I assume the PoM does claim exclusive canonical jurisdiction there.

Answered I believe above.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Does the PoM claim the parts of Lithuania and Finland conquered and incorporated by Soviet Russia? So, is basis for the claim of canonical jurisdiction in those areas Soviet conquest?

Finland: Ribacy: on the Russian side when the border was first drawn, 1826.
Salla: a sparse area which I can’t comment on.
Karelia: the real prize, 10% of Finnland’s population. They were, and are, overwhelmingly Orthodox. The Russian Chronicles list it as an ally of Novgorod. The Latin Swedish Crusade took over Western Karlia in 1293-1322, Novogorod retained the rest. 1635-1743 Russia gained this, and when Finland became a Grand Duchy of the Czar in 1812, he joined this territory, called “Old Finnland,” to Finland. Previously, many had gone to Russia to escape forced Lutheranization by the Swedes.
The real revival of Finnish culture was Karelinism, the national epic being based on their legends and folk poetry, for instance.

Lithuania: the only territory in dispute that I know of would be the Memelland: (mostly German), seized by the Nazis, given to Lithuania when the Soviets annexed Lithuania.
Vilnius: seized by the Poles, the area (opposed to the city) was heavily Belorussian (the official language of the Grand Ducy of Lithuania). The Soviets gave Lithuania its capital Vilnius and the 20% of the region that was Lithuanian, the Byelorussian rest went to Byeolorussia (which have them).
Lithuania Minor: actually part of Prussia, and mostly German.

But Hungary has been largely Catholic since the conversion of the pagan Magyars. Upon what does the PoM claim the right to keep Catholic bishops out of Hungary?

I don’t know of any claims by the PoM on Hungary. The first archbishop over all of what is now Hungary was St. Methodius.

And Japan? When did Russia rule Japan? Upon what basis does the PoM claim the right to exclude Catholic bishops from Japan?

Russia’s jurisdiction is from the evanglization of St. Nicholas, while Christianity was still banned.

When did the PoM exclude Latin bishops from Japan? This is news.

And does the Orthodox Patriarch of Poland claim there should be no Catholic bishops in Poland, as does the PoM in the areas in which he claims canonical jurisdiction?

The situation in Poland is different, as there you have a history of both Orthodox and Latin from the beginning, whereas Russia’s history with the Latin church has only been one of resisting foreign domination.

You never did respond to the question why, if the PoM claims the right to appoint bishops in places like Vienna on the basis of a “Russian diaspora”, he simultaneously denies the same right to the Catholic Church, many of whose members were victims of the Russian “diaspora” of Catholic Eastern Europeans, Balts and Volga Germans into the Russian Gulags.

You were doing so well at separating Soviet and Russian.

You know, comrade Stalin was Georgian, not Russian.

As I understand it, to put it in Latin speak, the bishop in Vienna is a vicar not an ordinary. The Latins are seeking ordinaries, and Russia has a long history with Latin vicars, one it doesn’t want repeated.