Pope (Benedict XVI) pledges to end Orthodox Rift

CNN ^ | May 29, 2005 | AP

[kosta50]

BARI, Italy (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI visited the eastern port of Bari on his first papal trip Sunday and pledged to make healing the 1,000-year-old rift with the Orthodox church a "fundamental" commitment of his papacy.

Benedict made the pledge in a city closely tied to the Orthodox church. Bari, on Italy's Adriatic coast, is considered a "bridge" between East and West and is home to the relics of St. Nicholas of Myra, a 4th-Century saint who is one of the most popular in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Benedict referred to Bari as a "land of meeting and dialogue" with the Orthodox in his homily at a Mass that closed a national religious conference. It was his first pilgrimage outside Rome since being elected the 265th leader of the Roman Catholic Church on April 19.

[rwfromkansas]

Well, since the Catholics are the ones that are more wrong, the Catholics obviously need to do more change.

Theology is not an area for compromise, unless of course you believe the truth of God doesn't matter.

[SaltyJoe]

Concerning the Crusader attack on Constantinople: my liberal history teachers kept us well informed about the "evil" Catholic Popes. What isn't mentioned in many history lessons are the "special demands" that European bankers made on expeditionary soldiers to Outreamer.

Venice wanted to be the central hub of European commerce. If a Crusader force was going to be funded by wealthy bankers, they had to bump off the competition. This included more than just Constantinople. Other Christian port cities were attacked and plundered too.

"Namely the problem of rampant liberalism and open dissent, so serious, that in some places clergy and even bishops who are Catholic in name either secretly or openly are in favor of making changes in the doctrines of the Catholic Church that would be much more in line with Protestantism. Many of these changes, such as the ordination of women, the acceptance of homosexuality, and a more tolerant attitude about abortion would certainly be unacceptable to the Orthodox."

Why do you think that the Catholic Faith is inundated by both non-Catholic and Catholic clergy propelling unacceptable errors?

Please examine it as thus: Jerusalem is under constant demonic attack as it has been ever since Christ died. Even over the very site of His execution there were pagan offerings (I think Cesar Hadrian built an altar to Jupiter there). That the Roman Catholic Church is under demonic attack for: liberalism, ordination of women, acceptance of homosexuality, a more tolerant attitude about abortion, etc. clearly show a focus against an institution effectively preaching the Teachings of Christ and shepherding the Sacraments. To be fair, the Orthodox Faith has also been under attack (and not necessarily by Crusaders funded by European bankers).

So, hasn't history spoken enough concerning the Blessedness of God's Chosen? That the Jews are still in existence proves that their God is the One True God. Thus, in similar explanation, how should one see the Presence of Christ among a celibate Priesthood that still exists...and prospers!?

I don't disavow history's crimes. I'm ashamed that "Christian" soldiers sacked Christian cities. I doubt Christ would approve. However, arguing over Catholic/Orthodox differences is like two brother Apostles' mother demanding that both St Jimmy and St Johnny get a chair next to Jesus in Heaven. (Matthew 20:20-28)

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew20.htm

[rwfromkansas]

Please show me where ORIGINAL sin is ever removed, ie...our sinful nature.

Paul explains very clearly to everyone but a Roman Catholic that we still struggle with the sinful nature that we inherited from Adam even after we are saved.

Mary never had her original sin removed. She was still a sinful human being. But, she was forgiven because of her faith in Christ, and the Holy Spirit allowed her to gradually resist and reject sin.

[rwfromkansas]

The Orthodox, who read the same fathers you do, reject those same doctrines that I do as a Protestant.

Looks like you are outnumbered.

[Kolokotronis]

"Reconciliation won't happen until the RCC gets rid of the Pope and the doctrine of infallibility, as well as removes other heretical doctrines, such as the immaculate conception etc."

Canticle of Deborah is right, my Kansas friend. No one in Orthodoxy, even the most anti-Roman Catholic would ever insist that the West get rid of the Pope. The Petrine Office is completely Orthodox. Infallibility in various forms is the sine qua non of the teachings of The Church. Its just saying that a single man, the Pope, by virtue of his office possesses that infallibility which we find unacceptable. I doubt that Orthodoxy holds that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is heresy per se, though I think an argument can be made that it is but that all turns on a definition of consequences of the Sin of Adam. Aside from the filioque, an issue which is more light than fire these days, the dogmas of the Roman Church since the Great Schism tend to be more in the area of "inappropriate innovation" than heresy. The dogma of the Assumption is a good example. In Orthodoxy, their is a pious belief, widely held for more than 1000 years, that the Theotokos was bodily assumed into heaven. Rome chose to make that dogma on its own. Since there can be no Ecumenical Council to decide this in the present Schism, Orthodoxy has chosen not to make such a proclamation, but we can believe it if we wish. There will be no full reunion without a Great Council of the Whole Church. Such a Council may be able to resolve these issues in a way which will be consistent with what the Fathers taught, the consensus patrum, and be equally received and accepted by the Faithful.

[rwfromkansas]

Thanks for your post. I apparently have not quite understood some of what I have been reading. Peace.

[SaltyJoe]

Perhaps the reason why a Catholic Pope kissed the Koran is for the same reason why Christ embraced the Cross, the instrument of His bodily destruction. (Matthew 16:24-25)

If the Crucifix is OUR victory that Christ is Life over Death, then what WILL be said of Christian victory over heresy?

[Agrarian]

The "Third Rome" is not a reference to the ranking of the bishops. Moscow has never suggested a change in the ranking of honor of Patriarchs that would put her above the ancient Patriarchates.

The designation is rather that of empire. When Constantine moved the seat of Empire to Constantinople to make a distinctively Christian capital without memories of the pagan imperial past, that was the Second Rome, or "New Rome."

When Constantinople and the last vestige of the Christian Roman Empire fell in the 15th century, this coincided with the rise of Russia as a large, Orthodox Christian nation. Russia did see itself as a successor to the Orthodox Roman Empire, and throughout most of its history, took its role very seriously in looking out for the interests of Orthodoxy around the world. There is a sense in which that attitude is being reborn in Russia today.

I am unaware of *anything* that indicates that the "Third Rome" moniker was the result of believing that Constantinople had fallen into heresy. I'm not sure where you would get that.

In fact, in the 16th century, after the fall of Constantinople, when Patriarch Nikon came to an awareness that there was a divergence of Russian service books from those in use in the Greek world, he immediately undertook a reform of the Slavonic service books to bring them into conformity with those in use in Constantinople, assuming that they were correct and the Slavonic books were wrong. In some cases he was right to assume this, and in other cases, it was actually the Slavonic readings that were older, but the point is that he deferred to the Greek world. These reforms caused the Old Believer schism, which hurt the Russian church deeply, and there were other negative aspects to it, including the loss of much of the living ancient Znamenny chant tradition, that is only now being recovered. These are not the actions of a Russian church which believes that Constantinople was in heresy.

I would also be careful with interpreting "excommunication" through Roman eyes. When the Pope excommunicates someone, then he's out of the Church. When one Orthodox primate "excommunicates" another primate, what is usually being spoken of is a "breaking of communion." In the Orthodox world, communion can be broken without a declaration that someone is outside the Church.

You are of course right that the Orthodox liturgy has developed (mostly by things being added) over time. No Orthodox Christian with a knowledge of the Liturgy would ever question that. But the changes and development have been quite gradual and organic. There have never been the kinds of sea-changes that happened in the Western liturgy after Vatican II. Pope Benedict has written on this.

One thing that is certain, though -- any Christian from the 5th century, East or West, could land in my parish on a Sunday morning and would know what was going on. I can pretty much guarantee that the same wouldn't be true if he were to land in one of our local Catholic parishes.

[FormerLib]

...because the Orthodox have made it clear they won't reconcile until the Pope kisses the feet of their patriarchs and then falls on his sword.

No reconciliation will be possible until both churches are purged of the sort of people who would state such blatant slander against the other, that's for sure.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The Pope kissing the Koran was the first step of submission to Islam in the eyes of Muslims. Muslims have the goal of occupying the Vatican. The first mosque built in Rome designed its highest point to be taller than the highest point of the Vatican. The Muslim goal is worldwide conquest and extermination of all other religions and believers.

The Koran denies the divinity of Christ. There is absolutely, positively, no way you can spin kissing it as some sort of heroic act. Christian martyrs died because they refused to bow to Islam. Kissing the Koran spits on their sacrifice.

[Kolokotronis]

"That the Roman Catholic Church is under demonic attack for: liberalism, ordination of women, acceptance of homosexuality, a more tolerant attitude about abortion, etc. clearly show a focus against an institution effectively preaching the Teachings of Christ and shepherding the Sacraments."

Holiness attracts demons. Ever notice how when things seem to be going good in parish, when the Faith is in full flower, converts and inquirers are coming in, the bills are paid and orthdoxy of praxis is seen daily, that trouble shows up? Our holy monastics have always maintained that the most powerful demons perch on the mountain crags and cliffs just outside the monasteries and that their howling can be heard in the night. The danger is not recognizing demons when they are at work. The Evil One's greatest success has been making so many belive he doesn't exist.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

You need to do a lot more reading and a lot less anathematizing.

[kosta50]

I think you must have confused me with someone else....there is nothing in your reply that I have said. :-)

[Kolokotronis]

" I apparently have not quite understood some of what I have been reading. Peace."

Don't worry about it, my friend. There is little or no reason why you would understand to any extent what we are talking about. So far as I can see, even though these are issues which should concern Protestantism in my opinion, aside from conservative Lutheranism where they are issues and Anglicanism where they should be but right now are being ignored by many 1st World Anglicans, they simply aren't. Interestingly, when many Protestants become interested and more especially educated in these questions, they often end up Roman Catholics or Orthodox! :)

[SaltyJoe]

"Your addition of Marriage is interesting as both Churches have traditionally looked upon "mixed marriages" as a danger and a challenge."

This all reminds me of my first encounter with "Jews for Jesus". A bright young man bent my ear in the City of the Big Apple to tell me about Jesus. Being a cradle Catholic, I was all ears, but a little ahead of him concerning my nonchalant acceptance of the Truth. What grabbed my attention were the two young and completely bodacious Jesus-loving Jewish ladies that were in his company. However, he wouldn't allow me to even get to first base with either of them...even if I wanted to talk about Jesus.

I want to love. I'm put off by those that would hinder me in this process. In the Bible, it clearly states in Genesis that I have to populate the earth. If God's Spirit guides me to a firm believer, then why do men halt me from True Love. I'm not a frankensteinian perversion that will indulge in violence if I can't be satiated with lust. Those who keep love from happening, especially if they're suppose to perpetuate love must, in reason, one day stand and be sorely charged for not permitting (or accepting) what should have always been open for access of the free will and utility of the Holy Spirit.

"Challenge" for me to love another Christian? Hell, it's a challenge for me just to get out of bed in the morning. Yet, I do it daily and at an early hour. If I'm encouraged not to love beyond my own kind, then why shouldn't I then be influenced by the same advice to not love my own kind and euthanize them when they age to a burden beyond reason?

So, in Christ's Compassion, what say He of Love and to whom it should be excluded? Did not the Jews from different tribes intermarry? Or, were they doomed to familiar inbreeding?

But to fairness of obedience, I will accept the dull tasteless institutional service of familiar marriage if it maintains the only path to the Heavenly Banquet. My spiritual senses perceive that the Sacrament of Marriage is more than a whip for religious ideology and contemptible contentions between Bishops and Patriarchs.

[SaltyJoe]

LOL. The most picture perfect of families will always have a stray sheep that brings shame to the family name.

[kosta50]

You are confusing theology with customs.

[stormyseas]

ooops....lol....I just was talking to the one that i clicked on I guess....yada yada....so sorry...:(

[SaltyJoe]

I accept your point of view and understand your patriotic desires (and even salute you).

When Christ resurrects those who've witnessed the persecution of the world and the Evil One, many Muslims will be won over by Jesus' power over sin and death. When all see that death has no grip on those who choose the Way of Christ over heresy, we might revisit Papal actions and a Christian man's gentleness to winning over the souls who don't yet know Christ.

It will not be with a pious sword or the stubbornness of hearts that unbelievers are won over to Christ.

[rwfromkansas]

I agree with you that the church as a whole has to be infallible. After all, how else would Christ protect His church and keep the fires of hell from prevailing against it?