Posted on 04/04/2005 10:01:53 AM PDT by annalex
MOSCOW, April 4. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov) - It seems the only place the pope wanted but could not visit was Moscow. His patience was boundless, but he did not live long enough to see changes in the Russian Orthodox Church.
He, however, was open to the whole world, including Russians. It turned out that establishing contacts with the secular authorities of the new Russia was much easier than with the hierarchs of the Russian Church. The pontiff received Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin, the latter of whom has sent the Vatican an unusual letter of condolences. More than a matter of protocol, it was warm and sincere, evidently expressing the President's respect for John Paul II.
Polish-born Karol Wojtyla was the first pope since the Apostles to enter a synagogue. He called Jews the elder brothers of Christians and prayed at the Wailing Wall. As the head of the Catholic Church, he visited a mosque and almost every country, including Orthodox ones, but was not allowed to pray in only one place, Moscow. The pope respected the Christian canons and waited for the Russian Church to change its mind. He has been waiting until his death.
It is not for me to reach a conclusion on the reasons behind the inflexibility of the Church leaders, but their formal explanations about Catholics seizing Orthodox houses of worship are not particularly convincing. In fact, the Vatican could make similar claims in many cases, as in the 20th century and even earlier many temples changed their terrestrial owners several times, all the while serving the same celestial Father. A papal visit to Moscow could have resolved half the contradictions.
I am almost certain that the first Slavic pope was not allowed to the Russian Church's congregation for the same reason that earlier had driven the Communist Party to cover up Western voices: the fear of comparison.
The point is that the Catholic Church was lucky: a man of the greatest moral authority andcharisma occupied its throne, whose personal influence was far greater than that of the Church itself. No matter how much the sick Russian Orthodox Church might have wanted, it could not find his equal, as it had still not made a full recovery after the decades of persecution under the Soviet authorities. Orthodox hierarchs could not bear the thought of the pope in a crowded Moscow square or, even worse, in the Christ the Savior Cathedral. After all, they are only human.
It also explains the unhealthy, not so much religious, as human, response to any movement of the Catholic Church in Russia, even though this competition is not about oil or aluminum, but human souls, which in a democratic country are expected to choose freely. The words "shepherd" and "flock" are just images, because people are obviously not sheep. People that have a right to choose, i.e., to enter the church they want.
I believe that Russia has missed a historic opportunity for rapprochement with the Catholics and, consequently, with much of Western culture. The last man of power in Russia who seriously preached ecumenism and rapprochement with the Catholics was Emperor Paul I of Russia. The last pontiff who perceived Russia, its contradictions and spiritual trials so shrewdly was John Paul II. It was not coincidence that he prayed before a Russian icon as well others.
There are few chances that an equal to the late pontiff will succeed him. After all, when he was a student, some jokers put a sign "beginner saint" - and it seems justly - on his door.
An ordinary archbishop will most probably succeed this rock of a person, who was not afraid to voice words of apology for the Catholic Church's previous sins. A person educated and worthy, but without the traits Karol Wojtyla had. There are people who cannot be replaced.
Certainly, the new pontiff will not be a Slav, and the relations between Moscow and the Roman throne will enter the usual bureaucratic dimension. Delegations will visit each other, agree on something, sign something and mark time.
In other words, a person of the 21st century, the late John Paul II, will be replaced by a person of the 20th century, who will hardly bring about any breakthrough in the future.
As a result, everyone will lose: the Vatican, whose authority will decline inevitably and quickly, Catholicism on the whole, Catholics in Russia and, naturally, the Russian Orthodox Church, which has lost a huge incentive for self-improvement. This is regrettable, as even many Orthodox priests admit that complete recovery is still a distant possibility.
Once John Paul II was asked whether he ever cried, and he said, "Never outside."
Today, a significant part of humanity, regardless of religion, is crying both inside and outside. Everyone in his or her own manner. Together and on their own. Karol Wojtyla deserved this.
Sorry, one thing +Augustine is known for is his lack of proper understanding of koine Greek. His traslations are notorious for inaccuracies. One that comes to mind is his confusion about the creation of the world.
Protestants are heretics. We see ourselves as being in disunity with the Orthodox, not as either being heretical churchs. That's why we care about what YOU think of us, you being part of the Apostolic church as we are, but heretical pronouncements are of as much consequence as that of the Ayatollah, as some say slam is a heresy as well.
Thanks for the ping.
I see I've missed a long and interesting thread.
I'm afraid right now I don't have time to fully participate, but I would suggest that all the posters, both Orthodox and Latin, might want to read the Tomus of 1285. It is the most refined statement on the procession of the Holy Spirit ever issued by an Orthodox council, and while it was a local council of the Great Church of Constantinople, it bears reading.
It has been argued by modern scholars that is provides the intellectual underpinnings for St. Gregory Palamas' defense of hesychasm and Uncreated Grace against the rationalist speculations of Barlaam the Calabrian (who, incidentally, died as a Cardinal of the Church of Rome).
The key point is, that while insisting that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (alone) (indeed it condemns the Acta of the Latin Council of Lyons for denying the traditional doctrine), it declares that the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son is not merely economical, but eternal.
I am puzzled by the one Latin poster talking using the word 'sequential' in connection with triadology. St. Athanasius' "There was not when the Son was not" applies equally to the Spirit. God is eternally Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is no sequentiality in the atemporal and eternal causation (in two different modes--begottenness and procession) of the Son and the Spirit from the Father.
This is a very interesting post. Thank you.
I have heard Orthodox men complain to me that they see Roman Catholics as having an insatiable desire for the Orthodox to become "Latinized." This term appears to have different meanings to different Orthodox sources. But the difference might be in my own perception more than it is in the sources themselves.
For us to expect other rites to abandon their ancient languages and to adopt Latin, for example, would be ridiculous. Therefore, "Latinize" must be exegesis, or even dogmatic.
If it comes down to dogma, then we cannot really have any discussion, but I would nonetheless appreciate seeing what the dogmatic differences are, so that I can be informed of their existence. As a Roman Catholic, I am fairly confident that I understand our dogmatic teachings. Have you read the Vatican document that defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854? Whose explanation of original sin, other than St. Augustine's, do you disagree with?
The other day I read a column in a magazine written by a Catholic priest that assures readers that Purgatory is not dogmatically defined, and therefore is not part of the deposit of the faith. When I asked another priest about this he told me that was not true, but is a common Modernist error.
So long as there is so much confusion floating around, it would be difficult for someone to know what the Church teaches with assurance. And as for you, it would be difficult for you to take issue with Roman Catholics on some of these things if different ones profess different versions of what the Church teaches.
Come to think of it, perhaps that is the plan: strike the shepherd and scatter the flock...
>>"we do not believe and profess one and the same faith no matter how you sugar coat it."
The differences in formulations exist and even greater differences in liturgical practice exist. The differences in the underlying doctrine are surmountable, if they exist at all.<<
I am reading this and I am trying to understand it, but so far it is making no sense to me.
I want to see where he is confused on substance. I can work through language.
"Sequential" was my choice of words. I understand it is awkward because it suggests a time sequence, inapplicable here. I merely tried to underline the difference in how the Orthodox and the Catholics understand the relation of the persons in the Holy Trinity. The Catholic is "sequential" in the sense that the Father eternally begets the Son and the Holy Ghost proceeeds from the two. The Orthodox is that the Father eternally begets the Son and is the source of the procession of the Holy Ghost.
My initial thinking was that the Orthodox share the understanding of the Trinity with us: that the Father begets the Son, and from the Father through the Son the Holy Ghost proceeds. So, I thought, the issue is words and authority to change words, not substance.
I was later convinced that the Orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity differs substantially. At this point I would like to get my questions about their understanding answered, because it seems to me manifestly wrong, and I am not having much luck.
Well, there is a little problem: any doctrinal statement in the Acta of a council the Latin church calls an "Ecumenical Council" is actually a dogma of the Latin church, whatever those who want to limit the teachings of the Latin church to the content of the recently issued "Catechism of the Catholic Church" may want to claim.
Purgatory is a dogma of the Latin church, as it was defined by the purported Union Council of Florence/Ferrar, which the Latin church claims as ecumenical.
Of course, from an Orthodox point of view, rejecting the dogma of purgatory is not a modernism, but a step back toward the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints.
The root of the Orthodox objection to the Latin dogma of purgatory is that it is part and parcel of the ideas of Barlaam the Calabrian that grace is created, rather than being a manifestation of the Uncreated Energies of God. Indeed, if you ask one of our most traditional monastics what the biggest hurdle to reunion is, he (or she) will probably cite 'created grace' (not a phrase the Latin church uses, but a short-hand for the Orthodox critique of Latin soteriology, purgatory included) not the filioque (which John Paul II seemed, correctly, willing to yield).
The filoque has been adequately explored on this thread.
The IC of the BVM is also a serious problem, since it, together with the failure of the Pope to insist upon the bodily death of the BVM before her bodily assumption (which has always been taught by the Orthodox, but *after* her death), leave as a permissible position within the Latin church, if not an actual dogmatic teaching, the plainly heretical position that the BVM has a pre-lapsarian Adamic nature, not a human nature as we now share. "Not assumed, not redeemed" was the cry of the Fathers against the monophysites, monothelites and monergians.
From the Orthodox view, the IC of the BVM comes very close to vitiating the basis of our salvation. (And, since the condemnation of Pope Honorius was dropped from the papal coronation oath, makes us wonder whether the West isn't still soft on the heresies which denied the full assumption of our humanity by the Eternal Word, but stopped short of monophysitism.)
What you say here is not the way I understand the Oecumenical Councils:
>>The pronouncements of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, the basis for the undivided Church, which are recognized by the Latin Church without exception, are binding even to the Pope because they are pronouncements of the Church (at the time when the Pope was not the king -- and I realize this is difficult for the Romans to accept the fact that the Pope did not always rule the Church). So, nothing can be changed, added or subtracted to any of the infallible pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils.
>>This is not a matter of taste or discussion. Addition of filioque was a violation of the EC pronoucnements and as such are heresy.<<
First I would like to clarify that I think it is unfortunate that the word "ecumenism" has recently distorted the denotation of the word, oecumenical (ecumenical). When the definition of words is morphed, people's thinking becomes warped. The first 20 Oecumenical Councils had the common theme of bringing all the bishops of the world together under the auspices of the current Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Now, you appear to be saying that the first 7 of these were somehow not subject to the pope. This stirs a faint voice, but I cannot exactly remember. As I do recall, the definition that every human creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff was made early in the 14th century. This was the second of three definitions that today are cited as the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation.
However, there were other councils before that time, not oecumenical because only a few bishops were called to attend, which made authoritative theological definitions that we hold continuously to this day, since the Church still survives. Do you say you are free to reject those definitions as well?
Fourth Ecumenical Council -- Chalcedon
SITE: Chalcedon, (north of Constatinople)
YEAR: A.D. 451
POPE: St. Leo I, the Great, 440 - 461
EMPEROR: Marcian, 450 - 457
ACTION: Called by Emperor Marcian, spouse of the chaste and noble St. Pulcheria, and ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great, the council condemned the heresy of the Abbot Eutyches, MONOPHYSITISM, which claimed that there existed only "one nature" (the divine) in Christ from the Incarnation onward. Though the council had approved the assertion that Constantinople should be ranked first after Rome ecclesiastically, Pope St. Leo did not. The primacy of the See of Rome was due to it's possession of the Chair of Peter, not to any political power. In his "Dogmatic Epistle," read by his legates at the end of the second session of the council (Oct. 10, 451), Pope St. Leo I also declared invalid all that had been done at the "Robber Synod of Ephesus" (a false Ephesus II): " ....we see no Council, but a den of thieves (Latrocinium)." In the greatest testimony of the Eastern Council to the primacy of the Pope, the bishops cried out: "Behold the faith of the fathers, the faith of the Apostles; thus through Leo has Peter spoken!" Eutyches was excommunicated.
NOTE: Pope St. Leo I, Doctor of the Church (d. 461), was called the "Soul" of Chalcedon.
HERESIARCH / HERETICS: EUTYCHES - MONOPHYSITES.
Can you please provide a web link for "Tomus of 1285"? I can't find it using search engines.
The recurring theme of JPII's lifelong ambition begins to arise in your post, it seems to me. He traveled the world (they are saying he logged enough miles to go to the moon and back), visiting foreign nations, political and religious leaders. It seems to me that these trips were a kind of prelude to his expected visit of Russia. But he was not welcome in Russia.
Looking back now, Russia might be getting a kind of worldwide attention she does not want to have. I have to wonder if the next Pope will try to go there, or if he will express a desire to do so? How long can Russia hold out?
Also, I recall hearing that the Greek Orthodox were less than gracious toward JPII. As far as that goes, China appeared to want no part of his friendship.
Thanks
I knew of a man who was on the maintenance crew after JPII came to Los Angeles in the 80's. At the Memorial Coliseum, after the crowd was thinning out, large burlap-like bags were used to collect the Communion hosts left over. He said that volunteers were collecting them from various dishes that were used by "extraordinary eucharistic ministers" but also that they were picking them up off the ground where they had been unceremoniously dropped during the liturgical service. The bags had an open weave in them and were made of a course fiber such that the contents were being broken apart inside, and when the bags were moved from one place to another, a little pile of fragments was left behind on the ground.
Could it be that the Orthodox wanted nothing to do with such things going on in their lands?
Ditto.
Your explanation is ever more helpful.
>>Too many of your people are fixated on far more mundane, yet potentially more soul destroying, concerns...to engage in the sort of patristic, long term theological education necessary.<<
We are now leaving a pontificate that has seemed to augment the condition you describe, rather than to make progress toward the engagement you would prescribe, unfortunately. They are saying that Cardinal Arinze is a "front runner" for Pope now. Tell me if you have not heard how he has suggested (not made very prominent in the media, however) that African voodoo should become part of the new, updated liturgy?
JPII made changes in the process for papal election, further fanning the flames of sedevacantism, it seems to me, by making a winning ballot now a simple majority after "so many ballots" fail to register a 2/3 majority. For the meantime, at least, we are all sedevacantists!
It is our prayer that whoever is now elected will be A) someone other than Arinze or any of the other ultra-Modernists "eligible," and B) if possible, that someone exists among the others who will be at least reformable away from the rampant Modernism of today, and he will be the one selected by the others.
In any case, traditional Catholics are in for some rough times ahead. I would not be surprised to see ever more repressive measures taken by Church and State toward our persecution. And I suspect that the Orthodox are not far behind. I have seen very unbecoming behavior from clerics toward traditionalists until they find out the question at issue is one of Orthodoxy, then suddenly it lightens up. I suspect it will not continue to lighten up indefinitely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.