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.
Well, since you mention it, really briefly:
The state viewed heresy as treason. The church was in charge of determining heretical views. It did not burn anyone, -- it would discuss the matter with the heretic and if he did not recant and failed to prove conformity, would "relax" him to the civil authorities who typically would execute him. There was nothing the church could do different.
When the state did not criminalize heresy, the church was content anathemizing it and not punishing the heretic corporately at all.
Gallileo and such were free to do science. When they ventured into domain of religion, their views were condemned inasmuch as their religious component was heretical. It is not unlike biologists today are condoned in their study of evolution, but condemned when their study is used to attack religion.
The church did things that were unwise. They should not have burned Savonarola, for example. It also did things that are horrific to us but were regular jurisprudence of the day. Often, better jurisprudence than what the secular authority had to offer. Cases are on record, -- with the famed Spanish Inquisition, -- when common thieves would pretend to be heretics so that they would fall under De Torquemada's jurisdiction rather than endure the secular trial.
In view of the scandals of the pederasty among priests today, I would very much advocate a return to the past practices of the Holy Inquisition in the United States. We have seen what happens when heretical, bordering on satanic views are tolerated among the priesthood. To tsk-tsk over the "persecution of the free thinkers" in the past is no ignore a log in our own eye.
If not... why??
Thanks for a good insight. However, it still was a case of Church heavily intertwined with State. As for pedophile priests, I would like to see a swift persecution in the respective countries of these perverts but by secular authorities rather then resurrection of inquisition for these purposes. It's a shame that certain cardinals chose the Church reputation over the safety of the Catholic faithful, especially children, and kept reassigning pedophiles to different parishes instead of quickly handing them over to authorities. I think the next Pope should definitely address this although I'm absolutely against painting the entire Catholic world in a bad light in light of these shameful scandals. Bad apples could be found anywhere--what's needed is a firm justice for those that violate kids, whether they are found in Catholic Church or outside.
My hope is that the Catholic Church as the oldest Christian Church will have a Pope that will continue all the best of John Paul II legacy--standing up for what's good and right reaching out to people around the world with the message of hope, brotherhood, love and justice.
The state can, and should, punish cases of actual molestation. The Inquisition, on the other hand, can look into the root cause: the neo-pagan near-satanic theology of sexual perversity as a gift from God. Practicing homosexuals should repent and go chaste, or be shamed and defrocked. This is a task that has nothing to do with the criminal law of the secular state, and for a variety of reasons cannot be done by the bishops alone. The Holy Inquisition was designed to rectify such crises. I hope that whoever succeeds Cardinal Ratzinger, who heads the present heir to the Papal Inquisition, will have the good sense to revitalize this honorable office.
I understand your thoughts. Catholic Church certainly has a right to defend its integrity to avoid turning into what happened to Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches of America.
However, I would not call Historical Inquisition a "Honorable" Institution. Tortures to compel the accused to confess and repent the sins Heresy (when Heresy could mean simply believing and publicly stating beliefs that were at odds with official Catholic Doctrine, like challenging the Pople infallability and other things) and Burnings at stake (even if latter was done by secular authorities with Inquisition approval) can hardly be called honorable. What's needed instead of Inquisition a some sort of Tribunal that could simply demand that Church members adhere to moral standards and practices of the Church or in case of repeated violations be asked to leave the church. In case of gross violations (like Pedophile Priests), the matter should be strictly handed over to secular authorities.
The brutality of the methods has nothing to do with honor, and, like I mentioned before, the Inquisition followed and usually surpassed in precision and mercy the best juridical procedure of the day.
This would have to be later on this month, because as I read on FR, he is presiding at one of the Masses for the Pope's funeral.
How nice for him. Out of a HOT spot in Boston... to a high position at the Vatican.
The center of Japanese Christianity was in Nagasaki before 1945, genius. Before the war, Japanese were being received into the Catholic Church at the rate of thousands each year.
I'll also add that the most successful Catholic missionary in Japan since St. Francis Xavier, who baptized more than 5,000 Japanese converts, was St. Maximilian Kolbe - who returned from Japan to counsel his priests in Poland and wound up giving his life as a martyr to the Nazis.
Also, the Orthodox Church has had missions to Japan for 200 years and more, yet less than 8% of Japan's Christians are Orthodox, even though the Orthodox missions were in the north and nuke-free.
That's ok, one Indonesian Orthodox convert and now priest has baptised well over 3,000 people in less then 5 years and this in a muslim nation. What was your point again? Uganda, Cameroon, S.Africa and Kenya are converting in mass to Orthodoxy led by Greek, Antiochian and Ethiopian priests.
Most Japanese are not even religious. To them faith is something cultural. Whatever religion is part of their culture, it is usually pantheistic. Out of 124 million people, a few thousand Christians are an aberration. Christianity as a culture is alien to the Japanese.
As I said, Korea is much more receptive to Christianity -- without martyrdom.
Probably the Croatian holocaust will also be labeled "unwise".
Kosta -- we in the West don't know about these persecutions. All we see/saw/perceived was the Russian Church selling out -- again, that's what we saw. And each time we see Patriarch Alexei refusing to let Pope JP come to Moscow, it seemed and, to be frank, still seems, churlish.
The pope was invited by several leaders, including Putin. It was the pope's choice to not come unless invited personally by Alexy.
Bwahahah! You're chock full of remarkable nonsense. Peter the Great turned the Russian Orthodox Church into a department of the State. But I bet you have a far-fetched apology for that too.
The Orthodox have an incredibly poor record of missionary and humanitarian activity. I guess the Beatitudes aren't as important as arguing about the Old Calendar, the Filioque, and the color of highback vestments. In the tsunami affected areas that I was in, I did not seen any evidence of Orthodox activity whatsoever. Nothing. Nada. Seen lots of Protestant, Catholic, and Buddhist projects, met Mormon volunteers... but no Orthodox.
Are you actually claiming that the Orthodox don't believe in the Gospel? That's an amazing statement coming from someone who claims to be defending the Orthodox Church.
You guys should get your story straight.
Which one of you is lying and which one is telling the truth?
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.