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.
That wording was made Church doctrine by the Ecumenical Councils and was the official wording of the faith of the undivided Church -- and to this day the plaque on the walls of the Vatican does not have the Filioque in the Creed!
The Orthodox Church is not an "ofshoot" of the "Catholic Church" but the Church that has not changed since the Church was undivided: the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. We did not add to or change the Faith of the Councils; the Latins did.
My point, and the Catholic position as I understand it is that such acceptable to all wording is possible
That wording exists, and the Latin Church subscribed to it until the 11th century. If it was good for the first 1,000 years, it sure must be good today. Only an Ecumenical Council can change the wording. The the best of my recollection, there were only seven such Councils. The Councils the Catholics call "ecumenical" are not ecumenical (by definition) and the reason the Orthodox cannot hold ecumenical councils is because of the Latin schism. In order for a council to be Ecumenical, the Church of the East and West must be present.
The statements of the Ecumenical Councils cannot be reworded by lay people, clergy or even the Bishop of Rome. You don't seem to understand that. Adding to and subtracting from them is heresy.
Kolkotronis explained the difference in our understanding beautifully and quite professionally. The essential difference is in the Trinity and, as Kolokotronis aptly observes in a previous post, the confusion in the West over what are hypostasia and what ousia.
The Creed establishes that the Son is (eternally) begotten, and not made (created). The Creed was composed to counter Arian heresy which dealt precisely with this issue. The Creed does not suggest real-time process.
The Creed explains the Passion of the Jesus Christ, because He existed and suffered in real time and in a real place made possible by Incarnation. That is different from the eternal essence of the Triune God.
You are also making the same mistake many Catholics make you are quoting Church Fathers to "prove" a point. Church Fathers were not always right. Church Fathers strayed into heresy. Bishops and patriarchs alike. The only true teaching is what the Church has officially agreed to teach -- what the Seven Ecumenical Councils proclaimed. No one Church Father had monopoly on truth in the undivided Church, and no one Orthodox member of the Church does. Orthodoxy is exactly that: holding on to what the Church as the Body of Christ declared to be, as is, not more and not less.
I think Agrarian put it very well also: we are long ways from ecumenism or even communion. Amiable relations are one thing. Theological differences an altogether different one. That is the crux of the schism: we do not believe and profess one and the same faith no matter how you sugar coat it.
...then I will show you a man who is Orthodox in name only.
What part of "NO personal attacks" didn't you understand? Perhaps your Christian love simply overcame your judgement?
I have given some thought about your posts and perhaps Kosta has gleaned where the problem is. The relevant section of the Creed dealt with refutation of Christologic and Trinitarian heresy. It speaks to the "inner and outer nature" of the Trinity. It doesn't deal with what goes on in the here and now. Thus, the difference between "ekporevetai" in Jn 15:26 and "lavete" in Jn 20:22 is very important since these words efer to different things. Ekporvetai is dealing with the the Spirit in the same manner that the English words "begotten not made" deals with the Logos, though of course these are not at all the same concept. "Lavete", liturgically translated as "take" as opposed to "receive" is a temporal imperative form. In other words, it has to do with us in the here and now. Procession has nothing to do with us nor with time. One might be able to say "through the Son" in a non exclusive sense regarding the "lavete" matter, but of course that doesn't talk about the nature of the Trinity and in any event, none of us, from the Pope on down, can sua sponte change what the Church decided in the Council and which was received and accepted by the people. Does this help?
In space and time, in relationship to Creation, and in relationship to our salvation, the Spirit and the Son play roles in the work of the other. The Son sent the Spirit (the Comforter) to the Church, and the Son became incarnate through the action of the Holy Spirit. These actions in time and in the economy of our salvation point to the intimate working and perfect cooperation between the persons of the Trinity. It does not mean that the Son is the eternal source of the Spirit's procession any more than it means that the Spirit created the Eternal Word of God.
All are equal in honor and glory and are equally worshipped. All are bound together in mutual love.
One of implications to the different way that the Orthodox view the Trinity is that all of our worship and understanding is personal. The unifying factor in the Holy Trinity is not an abstract "Divine Essence," it is the person of the Father. One God, revealed in three Persons, and that is how we tend to worship and pray -- not to God in general, but to the persons of the Trinity by name -- either individually or to the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, one in essence and undivided," as the line from the Divine Liturgy states.
Yes, I think that was the reason for the Russians' hardness of heart: a fear of a big pageant in Luzhniki stadium. The author seems to be clear on that. But this is sad, isn't it?
Yes, it is sad, especially since nothing productive comes out of those kinds of pageants. I feel certain that had the Pope simply come and said mass in his Catholic churches and left the Russian Orthodox Church out of it, Patr. Alexey would have said it was OK for him to come. The Catholics would have been very happy to have him come at all.
I am aware of the fact that I cannot change the wording of the Creed. But I can comment on it using words. Nothing in what has been posted here on the nature of the Trinity -- even looking ahead to 64 and 65, to which I will respond next -- strikes me as contrary to what Catholicism teaches.
Naturally, when the unity is restored, the Ecumenical Council will either have to find a better wording provided Filioque continues to be misunderstood, -- or the Orthodox will begin to understand that the Filioque wording does not threaten the balance of the Trinity.
The Creed explains the Passion of the Jesus Christ, because He existed and suffered in real time and in a real place made possible by Incarnation.
And in the same way the Creed needs to explain Christian ecclesiology by making a reference to the Christ's giving the Holy Ghost to the Apostles. This is what Filioque does.
You are also making the same mistake many Catholics make you are quoting Church Fathers to "prove" a point. Church Fathers were not always right.
So, St. Basil was wrong in The Holy Spirit 18:45-47? This is quite remarkable if you really think so.
Of course, having read my exchange with Kolokotronis, you realize that I was quoting St. Basil not in order to explain to him what the Holy Ghost is, but to correct his statement "Your comment that we do not receive the Holy Spirit directly from God like Moses for example isn't borne out by the Eastern Fathers at all, for example St. Basil the Great, St Symeon the New Theolgian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc".
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. Of course no complete unity is possible as long as the Orthodox come to the open door and insist on banging on it rather than walking over the threshhold. I think it will take a few generations more, -- a short time in historical terms.
A generation of Russians that has never seen a Christian service of any kind is still alive. To many, the memory of Billy Graham preaching in Luzhniki is a watershed event that changed their lives, -- and virtually no one, I can assure you, became a Baptist after that. This is what pageantry produces.
A generation of Russians that cannot conceive of a foreign leader who is not spearheading a conquest of Mother Russia ia very much alive. This is what the hard-heartedness is really all about, not the Filioque. This is what the pageantry could have lifted.
That is true, and I think all three of you point out the important thing about Filioque, -- that it renders the whole phrase sort of multidimensional. The Roman understanding is, and the intent was, to mention the role of the Holy Ghost in the economy of salvation at the same time it is introduced in the Creed as a Trinitarian person. The Orthodox objection is that such mutidimensionality is confusing.
But the entire Creed is supposed to deal with the Trinitarian aspect as well as the temporal aspect. The outline of our faith would not be complete without a reference to the Passion, the Ressurrection, and the Pentacost. Hence John 20:22 has to be mentioned in some form. Adn this is all the Catholic position is, that we disagree about words, not about what the Creed is really saying.
You will have to explain how the filioque does that. The role in the economy of salvation has already been discussed in the Creed by that point: the conception of Jesus Christ by the Virgin Mary. It goes on to talk of many aspects of His role in the economy of salvation: the fact that He is "the Comforter" that Christ promised, and that He is "the Spirit of truth," who preserves the faith inviolate. The Creed goes on to talk of the work of the Spirit in the economy of our salvation: for He is the Spirit that courses through the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church," He is the source of the awakening of our souls at holy baptism, etc...
What does the filioque do to better explain the Spirit's role in the economy of our salvation?
As to introducing the Spirit as a Trinitarian person, the Orthodox position is not that the filioque is confusing -- it is that it is wrong.
What happened in John 20:22 and what Christ promised when he said that he would send the Comforter were actions of the Son of God in the economy of our salvation. The eternal procession of the Spirit was not taking place in front of the eyes of the apostles in John 20:22.
Nowhere else does the Creed explain that the Church received the Holy Spirit from Christ, and that fact is fundamental in ecclesiology.
The eternal procession of the Spirit was not taking place in front of the eyes of the apostles in John 20:22.
True. You keep making the point on which we all agree.
It is for God to lift, certainly not pageantry.
You think that appearance of a holy man of foreign origin and religion whose message is "I love you", to a nation beset by xenophobic paranoia would not accord with God?
Your choice of such words tells me a great deal about your spiritual path.
I also think God doesn't care much about camera time, and neither does Patriarch Alexy.
You are getting into nuances now that could get us into disagreement. As far as the principle of "adding to" an infallible definition, the pope has done this on previous occasions through the centuries in other areas, all of which are still considered ex cathedra definitions, as far as I know. "Rome has spoken, the question is closed" works so long as the question remains the same. As time passes, sometimes new attacks on the Faith raise new questions related to the former ones, in which case "adding to" the former definition becomes necessary, inasmuch as a more refined or clarified teaching is needed.
In regards to the Nicene Creed, if the Orthodox are upset for thousands of years because they were not invited to discuss the need to add something, that would seem to indicate that a better communication should be developed between east and west. The infallibility of the pope is not based on a democratic vote, however, nor could it be.
I do not presume we are going to settle anything here, but I am hoping to get a better exposure to the controversy, if I can. I do not claim to know the whole story, but I am interested in learning more, for this is obviously not going to go away overnight.
But that is not what the filioque states -- it speaks of the eternal procession of the Spirit. If it were necessary to state that Christ, in His interaction with His creation, sent the Holy Spirit to the Church in AD 33, then this could have been spelled out by the Fathers of the 2nd ecumenical council. But it wasn't.
To say the the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the same way that He proceeds from the Father and then say that it is a description of what happened in time, in the economy of our salvation would have been like saying that the Son was "begotten of the Father and the Spirit", and then try to explain this by saying that what was really meant was that the Spirit played a role in Christ's conception, and thus the manner of his being sent to us for us and for our salvation.
Obviously something more than the economy of our salvation was intended by the people who added the filioque, and was understood differently by the Roman Church. I have a Catholic Catechism that describes the Holy Spirit as "the consubstantial love of the Father and the Spirit," or something like that. This is a very depersonalized view of the Spirit. The "multidimensional" view of the Trinity, summarized by the famous triangle with the persons at the corners and the Divine Essence in the center, can lead to a depersonalized and amorphic concept of God.
I was born in what is now St. Petersburg and baptized Russian Orthodox shortly thereafter. I grew up in Moscow, emigrated in the waning years of the Cold War and converted to Catholicism over ten years ago.
I travel to Russia, where I have frieds and relatives, periodically. I know whereof I speak. Any message of goodwill coming from the West would be precious in that tormented country. A great opportunity has been lost and we are all poorer.
The Catholic understanding is that "Who proceeds from the Father through the Son" is a valid interpretation, which was intended in Filioque.
Attitudinal nuances that you refer to when you speak of a depersonalized concept of God may or may not be reality, but we don't need to discuss them now, since clearly many differences like that exist and will continue to exist.
I'll post the Catechism on the Holy Ghost later today.
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.