Ecumenical prospects dimmed?
Luckily there are many Orthodox Christians who do not think or act in this way, so there is hope for the future.
For later -- Substituting this afternoon in an elementary school.
As I understand it, the problem for the Russian Orthodox is theological, and not merely political or petty.
On the one hand, they are not in communion with the Catholic Church. On the other hand, they recognize the Patriarch of the West, the Pope, as being senior in dignity to the other patriarchs, the First Among Equals.
And this puts the Russian Patriarchate in an impossible position, under the current understanding. On the one hand, they owe a duty of respect to their senior in dignity. On the other hand, they must not share communion with the leader of a Church they do not consider to be doctrinally correct.
The only way to avoid the impossibility of the circumstances of a Patriarch paying homage to the Pope, whose religion the Patriarch's religion says has lapsed into error, is to avoid the meeting.
The Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople has met the Pope and performed a common service, but it had to be carefully scripted, with the liturgy being adapted from the Eastern Rites so as to NOT contain the "filioque" clause ("and from the Son") in the Creed, which the Orthodox find so problematic (indeed, it was the proximate cause of the Great Schism).
Moscow is in a different place in its emergence from domination than Constantinople or Greece are, and the Russian hierarchs find the prospect much more troubling from a theological basis.
And for his part the Pope has not forced the issue. He has sent relics back to Moscow, but though he could have just declared his intentions to come, and probably would not have been banned from the gig by the Russian government, he did not. John Paul's purpose was to promote reconciliation, not grandstand in Moscow and damage such relationships as there are between Rome and "the Third Rome".
Someday.
Pyotr the Romanov?
Malachi: just wondering if you're familiar wit this guy.
Hardly, considering that 1/2 the West is protestant and most of the rest is post-Christian.
Pope John Paul II was the first Pope ever to visit England as Pope. He had several personal encounters with both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Queen. This was achieved despite Rome's 16th Century decree (which to my knowledge has not been rescinded) that all Anglicans are condemned to eternal punishment and the ensuing crusade launched against England (we know this as the Spanish Armada). Rome never condemed the Russian Church the way it did the English Church (Rome welcomes all Eastern Orthodox to receive Communion), nor did Rome ever giving blessing to or outright call for military action against Orthodox Russia for religious reasons. Why then are Rome's relations with the Church in England the warmest they've been in over 1000 years (Anglo-Roman relations were usually less than cordial throughout the Middle Ages) while Rome's relations with Russia about as cold as a Russian winter? Why does the Russian Orthodox Church gladly receive visits from Anglican bishops (even the heretic Frank Griswold), yet won't even entertain the thought of a call from the Bishop of Rome? Certainly Patriarch Alexi II held more in common theologically with Pope John Paull II than he did with Frank Griswold.