As I read through this thread and the other, more inflammatory one concerning the return of the icon and the tensions between Moscow and Rome, I realize that something I said earlier in the thread was a non-starter. I suggested that the Pope should recognize the Russian Patriarch in his sphere, and cease to send Catholic missionaries to seek Catholic conversions (from Russian Orthodoxy) in the territory of the Russian Patriarch.
But that cannot be the answer.
Our Churches are far apart. The Orthodox clearly believe that their side of the argument is completely correct. I have been unwilling to fight on the merits, because I think that no unity will ever be found that way. Personally, I think that Rome has the better argument. In a nutshell, I read Jesus' giving "the power of the keys, to loose and to bind" to Peter as Jesus himself creating the papacy, and I see Church Councils as a later creation, in apostolic times, to govern the Church. The Apostles and the Church did not have the power to override the Supreme Power that Jesus explicitly gave to Peter, and that Peter passed down in apostolic succession. When it comes down to it, I believe that the Bible itself says that Jesus Christ made the Pope infallible and final and absolute in his power, and that Church developments that trended away from that are themselves innovations that derogated from the structure that Jesus created. I believe in the monarchic Church, not just as a matter of historical necessity in the West, but as commanded by God Incarnate.
But I don't think that there is any way to argue the issue. One either reads the Gospels that way, or one does not.
Here, I sought a discussion as to how we could go about putting the sacramental Church back together. It has become clear enough to me that the desire to do so - which is to say the desire to obey Jesus - is weaker than the desire to preserve our respective traditions. If the Muslim onslaught did not reconcile East to West, nothing else is likely ever to do so in our lifetimes.
Therefore, the Pope must not recognize the territorial integrity of the Eastern Patriarchs. He must send Latin missionaries into Russia and compete directly with the Orthodox Church. There isn't anything else to be done at this point. Future generations may be more able to cooperate than we seem to be able to, but until that day, the Pope must not cede his authority over the universal Church, and if the Eastern Precincts of the Church will not recognize that authority, than it is the duty of the Pope to send in Roman Catholic missionaries into the Patriarchate of Moscow, and elsewhere, and compete for souls. Obviously the Russian Church has an ethnic advantage on this turf, but the long history of co-option by the Communists has certainly created the dynamic whereby Russians are, in fact, turning to Rome in unprecedented numbers. Will Catholicism sweep Russia? No. No more than the Eastern Rite Catholics will predominate in Eastern lands. Nevertheless, since it is clearer to me than it has ever been that there is not going to be a rapprochement between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, Catholicism has to be directly on the ground in the East, in direct competition. The Pope cannot wait and hope that things will get better. If they do, future generations will see their way clear where we will not. If they do not, the Catholic Church needs to be aggressively competeing for souls everywhere in the world, including in Orthodox lands.
Unfortunately, there apparently is no other way.
Your claims about biblical papacy are just plain wrong, amateurish at best. The Apostles did not answer to Peter. You have no clue what you are saying. You have also completely ignored or missed the sources that show that Papal primacy was that of honor and prestige and that his power over clergy was only in the West, not the East. If the Pope was considered infallible ex cathedra why was there a need to make it a dogma at the end of the 19th century? The decisions of the Councils were passed, as inspired and infallible, by the Synod and signed into effect by the Emperors whether the popes approved or not in full or in part.
I am off this and any other Catholic thread from now on. Thank you for making up my mind! You managed to poison this thread at the very last minute, like a child who can't get his way except by throwing a temper tantrum.
Untrue.It is the protestants who are, in fact, sweeping Russia. Those Russians who reject Orthodoxy most often choose the Pentecostal and Evangelical churches.
"The top three new religious movements in Russia, according to conventional estimates, are the Pentecostals, the Baptists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. By one count, Protestantism grew throughout the 1990s at a rate of 20 to 25 percent per year. Even if that rate has slowed, growth continues. (It’s not just Russia. According to official statistics issued by the Belorussian government, Pentecostals are now the second largest religious group in the country, surpassing Catholicism, based on the number of registered communities."
The Catholic church will never successfully compete with Orthodoxy and Protestantism in Russia.
Your statements indicate that Catholicism is superior to Orthodoxy. We have never taken that stance, rather we have always said that only God chooses those who are saved.
It is not evolution but transfiguration which is characteristic for Orthodoxy."
How sad to see the divisive and competitive spirit in your post. You and your church will never tear the Russians away from their Orthodox history and past. It is a part of their culture, which even now transforms the protestants taking hold there.
"When a tribe or people or nation accepts Orthodoxy, as did Greece, Serbia and Russia, for example, that Christ-incarnating force transforms the society, shaping its soul, its ethos and its values."
It is Russia and the soul of the people there which would bless your church, not vice versa. I suspect your pope knows this, as does your Kasper, from things they have said.
But this inherent holiness, this kenotic culture, this belief in a life within Christ expressed in a piety mostly unknown in the west, are not yours to dominate or take away from the Russians. Instead those who came with that attitude were themselves transformed by the very depth of Orthodoxy within Russia.
Oh dear - another promising thread goes occidental! ;)
If I might appeal to everyone to cool one's tempers/disappointments and not disengage from one another, as this is surely not the way of Christ?
None of us want to arrive before God's judgement seat and be asked the question "Where is your brother?", to which we might only be able to respond "Am I my brother's keeper?"
There are some interesting points which have been raised here, which are worthy of prayer, reflection and discussion by us all.
Firstly I would like to say that my earlier contribution where I queried the point or desire for unity was not meant to be an outright nix of Vicomte13's original post. It was meant rather as a reality check in that the differences between us are definitely not susceptible to quick-fix solutions, no matter what the level of desire to overcome them. Rather than being a flash-in-the-pan schism that happened overnight, the separation of East and West was a gradual drifting apart which took centuries to mature, and in some places a practical intercommunion at the grass roots continued as late as the eighteenth century. Similarly it could take centuries to heal.
However, I do believe it will be healed, even if it is despite us, because Almighty God wills it so. The Catholics and Orthodox may be two of the most stubborn and intransigent groups of believers on this earth, but the Holy Spirit is truly Omniscient and Omnipotent. With God all things are possible.
kosta50 said:
"The Pope is the sheppard. Both churches know and recognize that. It is up to the First Bishop to lead and feed his sheep. That the Church is still divided is his cross. Only he can make us one again; we can't. He knows what is needed."
I think you rightly point out that our unity is indeed a cross that is laid on the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome in a particularly burdensome way. I think it shows particularly in this current Papacy, and perhaps we needed a Slav Pope to turn the eyes of the West to the East again rather than being preoccupied with the fallout of the Reformation.
However, to say that he knows what is needed is perhaps putting a little more faith in his abilities than even conservative Catholics have a tendency to do. One problem of being the Pope is that many people will only tell you what they think you want to hear, rather than telling you how things really are. IMHO, the important things that he has emphasised are that:
a) Nothing will happen and God is not served if we can't even talk to each other (this I think is his real reason for wanting to meet Alexy)
b) If we both seriously desire the unity for which Christ prayed and are committed to seeing this come about in some form under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then at some point we have to stop calling each other heretics, schismatics or worse.
c) We have to stop proselytising each other's flocks. Unity will never be granted us if we see ourselves as being in competition for souls.
Vicomte13, I understand the frustration you feel because of some of the responses to your original post. However, I would remind you that this is Freeperland where the Catholics tend to be more Catholic than the Pope and the Orthodox tend to be more Orthodox than the Ecumenical Patriarch! Despite what you may think, there is a considerable spectrum of opinion in Orthodoxy on these matters as well as in Catholicism.
Your frustration is why you probably wrote:
"if the Eastern Precincts of the Church will not recognize that authority, than it is the duty of the Pope to send in Roman Catholic missionaries into the Patriarchate of Moscow, and elsewhere, and compete for souls."
This is not going to happen while we have a Pope who takes his responsibilities for Christian Unity seriously, if ever. Proselytising amongst souls who are ethnically Orthodox, particularly after a period when that Church has only just emerged from the catacombs of Communist oppression would be a sin against charity.
On the other hand the Russians must accept that due to their recent history, there is a real and genuine need for a substantial Catholic mission in their lands because of the activities of a certain Josef Stalin - and his ilk.
It was they who filled their land from the Urals to Siberia with ethnic Catholics from Poland, Germany, Lithuania, Slovakia etc. and these people have as much right to be ministered to by priests of their faith as do the Orthodox faithful here in the West. However, ministering to the ethnically Catholic population does not excuse proselytism. There will no doubt always be those who, of their own volition seek out the Catholic faith, as there are Catholics who will seek out Orthodoxy, but if this does not come about as a result of unsolicited inducement, it cannot be considered proselytism.
“I believe in the monarchic Church, not just as a matter of historical necessity in the West, but as commanded by God Incarnate.”
The Church has always been a monarchy in both East and West, but the king is no Pope, Patriarch, or Bishop – Jesus Christ, Sovereign and Universal King is the one true king to whom all Catholics and Orthodox alike owe allegiance.
To this extent, when Catholics compare the papacy to a monarchy, then this is a distortion of the true nature of the Papacy, and the Orthodox rightly object to it. The passage from Matthew 16,16 onwards gives us an important pointer to what the Petrine role is meant to be. When Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the Kingdom, this is an inter-testamental echo of the passage in Isaiah 22,20 onwards where Eliakin, Son of Hilkiah is given the key of the House of David along with the power of binding and loosing.
Eliakin’s appointment was as the Prime Minister of the House of David – not the king. A Minister is a very different sort of beast than is a President – a government which he heads is supposed to be one of collective decision making rather than the individual out front as in a Presidency. (One of the commonest complaints that we Brits have of Blair is that he is acting too much like a President rather than a Prime Minister.) While a Prime Minister has his authority bestowed on him by the king, so do the other ministers. He is truly a Primus inter pares, however, his role also entails responsibilities and obligations that do not devolve onto the other ministers. He is empowered to speak and act on behalf of the whole group of ministers, but the principles of cabinet government would also mean that he would not presume to speak on their behalf without consulting them and gaining consensus. The unity of the whole government also is his responsibility in a unique way.
Historical conditions over the last 1500 years have necessitated the Papacy assuming a monarchical role in the West, however, this has been a distortion. If the Catholic Church can restore a more Scriptural exercise of the Petrine role, then this would certainly be one factor which would aid the cause of unity with the East in the long term.
One more thing should be noted for the record, for the sake of Catholic understanding as much as the Orthodox: we have never understood the Pope’s authority to be “absolute” and it could never be so. Only Christ has Absolute Authority. The tendency towards an absolutisation of Papal authority over the last 200 years is Ultra-Montanism, and is not the Catholic Tradition.